Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 1 of 43

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JEFFREY BARHAM 3217 Connecticut Avenue #57 Washington, DC 20008,

FILED
NOV 1 9 2002

MARY CANALES 12 Green Dolphin Drive South Burlington, VT 05403,

WlLLIAM DURHAM 4323 River Road, NW #1 Washington, DC 20016,
NOAHFALK 1727 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Apartment 502 Washington, DC 20036,
JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ 126A N. Bedford Street· Arlington, VA 22201,

Jl;1J/V
.&. ~ """~~
RtC110]f CASE NUHBER i:02CV02283
JUDGE: Gladys Kessler DECK TYPE: Civil Rights ( nor:-employmen i DATE STAMP: 11/19/2002

MARK ALLAN JACKSON 1418 G Street, SE, Apt. B Washington, DC 20003,

CASEY LEGLER 1401 N Street, NW Apartment 604 Washington, DC 20005,

CHARLCIE LEGLER 126A N. Bedford Street Arlington, VA 22201,

MICHAEL LEHACH 723 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002,

1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 2 of 43
BRIAN MCATEER by and through his guardians Loretta and Sean McAteer
3812 Wilberta Street Olney, MD 20832,
SALLY A. NORTON 9 Clinton Place Fairport, NY 14450,
JOHN PASSACANTANDO 702 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20001,
JOSEPH PHELAN 402 Classon Basement Apartment Brooklyn, NY 11238
NICOLE PRICHARD 3300 16th Street, NW Apartment 415 Washington, DC 20010
MORGANRESS 112 Lincoln Avenue Apartment 415 Bronx, NY 10454,
LAURY SALIGMAN 1330 New Hampshire Ave., NW Apt 723 Washington, DC 20036
MACDONALD SCOTT 3 Rutland Street Apartment 1 Brooklyn, NY 11225,
MILES SWANSON 4414 Hatfield Lane Washington, DC 20007,
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 3 of 43
JERI WOHLBERG 10 Henry Street Burlington, VT 05401,
LESLEY WOOD 3 Rutland Street Apartment 1 Brooklyn, NY 11225,
SAMANTHA YOUNG 140lN Street, NW Apartment 604 Washington, DC 20005,
STEPHEN ZIMMERMAN 1549 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Chief of Police . Metropolitan Police Department 300 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20020,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4414th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001,
D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 441 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001,
ANTHONY WILLIAMS in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Mayor District of Columbia 441 4th Street, NW
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 4 of 43
Washington, DC 20001,
GALE A. NORTON in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240,
JOHN ASHCROFT in his official capacity as Attorney General ofthe United States U.S. Department ofJustice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, in their individual and official capacities
Defendants.
COMPLAINT (First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment; False Arrest and
Imprisonment; Conversion; Negligence)
OVERVIEW
1. On September 27,2002, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in joint action with
federal law enforcement agencies (and unidentified other local or federal agencies) once
again deployed its Civil Disturbance Units to disrupt political protest in the Nation's
Capital; and to pnnish with unlawful detention and false arrest those who engaged in
lawful civil dissent on this first day of a weekend of planned demonstrations, as well as
those interested non-protesters or political sympathizers who approached the
demonstrations to hear the political message or engage in political discussion.
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 5 of 43
2. The F.B.I. used these mass arrests as a mass intelligence gathering operation. Working in
conjunction with federal law enforcement agencies, including the F.B.I., the D.C. police department compelled identification information from those it falsely arrested as a condition ofthe arrest, confinement and release. The F.B.!. and other local and federal law enforcement agencies collected intelligence and identification information on lawful political activists, their activities, and others who associated with or were in-proximately to the demonstrations. 3. This lawsuit challenges what have become systematized mechanisms of government disruption of free speech and assembly to criminalize dissent, and in particular the tactics, deployment, and use of Civil Disturbance Units by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department acting in conjunction with federal and other law enforcement authorities, against peaceful protesters. These units, as a matter of practice and policy, employ unconstitutional tactics to disturb, disrupt, infringe upon and criminalize constitutionally protected speech and assembly. 4. This complaint is the most recent in a series oflawsuits with a shared factual allegation: That the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department's Civil Disturbance Units maintain and execute unconstitutional tactics to disrupt lawful protest and assembly including specifically the routine use ofmobile police lines to interfere with freedom of association, assembly, speech and free movement; and the use of administrative detention, false imprisonment and false arrest tactics in which the CDUs will trap protesters (and others in physical proximity) on all sides, seize, detain and arrest those trapped/seized in the absence of probable cause. These actions are accomplished through
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 6 of 43
·"."r'
the use of paramilitary force and threat of force in order to deprive, interfere with, and deter the exercise of constitutionally protected rights 5. The earliest filed now-pending case alleging the existence of these unconstitutional disruption strategies and tactics is International Action Center, et al. v. USA, et aI., CA 01-00072, which arose out of the deployment of these tactics during the Bush Inauguration demonstrations in January, 2001. The existence ofthese tactics was also alleged in the subsequently filed litigation 50 Years is Enough, et al. v. District of Columbia, et aI., CA 01-00811, which arose out of the deployment of these tactics during the April, 2000 International Monetary Fund protests. 6. At each of these demonstrations, the D.c' MPD actions have been coordinated and executed in conjunction with the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation, among other U.S. agencies. 7. The conduct challenged herein is neither aberrational nor the consequence of overzealous but well intentioned law enforcement. It was the implementation of a pre-designed plan to engage in unconstitutional preemptive arrests intended to round-up political activists and lock them up in the absence of probable cause. U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer testified - - before the protests - - that he and D.C. police had discussed preemptive action against protesters. 8. When one plaintiff asked why she was being arrested and whether she could please go free, one officer candidly explained that she was being arrested because she was displaying political "propaganda." Others were let out apparently based on their perceived loyalty to the government. The Washington Post reported that police lines
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 7 of 43

, \

(''"''\,

\ .. " j

yielded for at least one detainee when he displayed a Department of Justice identification card. 9. This complaint additionally alleges that police treat and process those (falsely) arrested in connection with targeted mass political activity differently from those who are arrested for other minor offenses. Plaintiffs were subjected to more harsh treatment in custody and were hogtied wrist-tocanklefor hours; They were subjected to intentional sleep deprivation and were not released in a matter of hours as would normally be the case, but were held into the night and overnight, for up to 30 hours. The purpose of these arrests was not to enforce laws, but to take protesters off of the streets on the first day of a weekend of planned political events. 10. The District of Columbia maintains a policy, practice andlor custom of denying to those arrested in targeted mass political round-ups the option to be released and "post and trial." This option allows an arrestee to be quickly released from jail or custody by posting collateral and receiving a trial date on which to challenge the legality of the arrest. The MPD is advising persons caught in targeted mass political sweeps that they must remain in jail or police custody for an extended period of time or may secure release only by "post and forfeit," which means the arrestee forfeits the collateral and does not receive the opportunity to challenge the legality of the arrest. This disparate treatment, disallowing the post and trial option in the case of political round-ups, denies those arrestees equal protection under the law, and also subjects those who wish to challenge the legality oftheir arrest to greater pre-arraignment jailor police custody simply because they seek to exercise their constitutional right to defend against an unlawful arrest.

7

, ,

, ,

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 8 of 43

11. Federal agencies coordinate with the MPD in connection with mass political arrests for, among other reasons, using the arrests to collect photographs, fingerprints and other information about political activists and their associations. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, among other unidentified federal agencies, collects such data and places it in information databases and, on information and belief, disseminates and makes such personal-informationavailable to {)ther entities.
12. Those who are forcibly arrested and deprived of their liberty suffer great fear, harm, and personal injury. The stigma of having been arrested carries on beyond the immediate personal and physical consequences of the deprivation ofliberty. The collection and dissemination of personal information and political associations effects an invasion and loss ofprivacy, as well as a profound loss of Constitutional right to be protected when engaging in or associating with First Amendment protected activity.
13. These round-ups and mass arrests of political activists are anathema to democracy. It is not merely remarkable that such ronnd-ups happen repeatedly in Washington, D.C., but that policy makers emphatically ratifY such blatantly unconstitutional tactics.
14. "Ain't it a thing ofbeauty," Chief Ramsey stated on September 27,2002, as he reviewed the officers about to mass arrest hundreds in Pershing Park, "to see our folks up there ready to go."
15. These challenged police actions create a substantial chilling effect and deterrent to future First Amendment protected activity as the exercise of one's political rights in Washington, D.C. now carries with it the risk of arrest, of being wrongfully subject to the criminal process of the state, of being threatened with physical harm by the police, being
8

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 9 of 43
, ,
bound with handcuffs, having one's identification and political activities be collected and recorded - - for no reason other than having political associations that have been targeted by the federal government or by the local chief ofpolice or mayor. 16. This complaint seeks, in addition to monetary compensation, injunctive relief enjoining defendants from engaging in the challenged conduct in the future.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
question), 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and (4) (civil rights jurisdiction), and 28 U.S.c. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). 18. Venue is appropriately vested in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the District of Columbia is a judicial district in which all defendants reside, and, independently because a substantial part ofthe acts or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in the District of Columbia.
PARTIES 19. Plaintiff JEFFREY BARHAM is a law student at the George Washington University
School of Law and a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27,2002, Mr. BARHAM, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in the vicinity of Vennont Ave. and K Street when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested Mr. BARHAM in the absence of probable cause. 20. PlaintiffMARY CANALES is a Registered Nurse, and a resident ofthe state of Vennont. On September 27, 2002, Dr. CANALES was in Washington, D.C. to attend a
9

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 10 of 43
nursing conference. Dr. CANALES saw a political assembly in Pershing Park and entered the park to associate with the demonstrators and to see if there was a speaker to listen to. Dr. CANALES was peaceably and lawfully standing in the park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the paikwith pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause, 21. Plaintiff WILLIAM DURHAM is a law student at Georgetown University Law Center and resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27,2002, Mr. DURHAM was peaceably and lawfully protesting in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence ofprobable cause. 22. PlaintiffNOAH FALK is a law student at the George Washington University Law School and a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002, Mr. FALK, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 23. PlaintiffJORGE GARCIA-SPITZ is a cook at II Radicchio in Arlington, VA, and a resident of Virginia. On September 27,2002, Mr. GARCIA-SPITZ lawfully rode his bicycle with about sixty other cyclists to convey, by way of example, his support for, and the effectiveness of non-fossil fuel based modes of transportation. In the vicinity of Pershing Park, Mr. GARCIA-SPITZ was confronted by a police line that had popped up
10

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 11 of 43
obstructing his movement, he was ordered off of his bike and into Pershing Park where, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 24. Plaintiff MARK JACKSON is an independent contractor with the Underground Railroad . and Freedom Genter, and works with a curator at the American History Museum. He is also an adjunct professor at the George Washington University, and a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002 Mr. JACKSON walked over to Pershing Park where there was a political assembly. When he tried to move on to work, Mr. JACKSON realized that without notice or warning, police had surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, and closed off all avenues of exit. He was falsely detained and arrested in the absence of probable cause. 25. Plaintiff CASEY LEGLER is a resident of Washington, DC. On September 27, 2002, Ms. LEGLER lawfully rode her bicycle with about sixty other cyclists to convey, by way of example, her support for, and the effectiveness of non-fossil fuel based modes of transportation. In the vicinity of Pershing Park, Ms. LEGLERwas confronted by a police
line that had popped up obstructing her movement, she was orde"red off of her bike and
into Pershing Park where, without notice or warning, police surrounded her with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause. 26. Plaintiff CHARLCIE LEGLER is a student at George Mason University and waitress at the Tabard Inn and a resident ofVirgima. On September 27,2002, Ms. LEGLER
11

f

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 12 of 43

lawfully rode her bicycle with about sixty other cyclists to convey, by way of example, her support for, and the effectiveness ofnon-fossil fuel based modes of transportation. In the vicinity ofPershing Park, Ms. LEGLER was confronted by a police line that had popped up obstructing her movement, she was ordered off of her bike and into Pershing Park where, without notice or warning, police surrounded her with pop up police lines, boxed herin; closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested hef"in the absence of probable cause. 27. Plaintiff MICHAEL LEHACH is a law student at the Georgetown University Law Center and a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27,2002, Mr. LEHACH, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in tlie vicinity of Vermont Ave. and K Street when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested Mr. LEHACH in the absence ofprobable cause. 28. Plaintiff BRIAN McATEER is a high school student, a reporter for the Independent Media Center, and a resident ofMaryland. He was lawfully videotaping political activity near the intersection of Vermont Avenue and K Streets, NW on the morning of September 27,2002 when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested Mr. McATEER in the absence of probable cause. As has happened to other independent media reporters with recurring frequency at demonstrations in Washington, D.C., his video camera and tape were seized by the D.C. MPD and confiscated while in
12

, ,

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 13 of 43

the custody ofthe MPD. 29. Plaintiff SALLY NORTON is a Registered Nurse, an Assistant Professor at the
University of Rochester School ofNursing, and a resident ofthe State of New York. On September 27,2002, Dr. NORTON was in Washington, D.C. to-attend a nursing conference. Dr. NORTON saw a political assembly in Pershing Park and entered the park to associatewiththedemonstrators and"to see ifthere was a speaker to listen to. Dr: NORTON was peaceably and lawfully standing in the park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause. 30. Plaintiff JOHN PASSACANTANDO is the Executive Director of Greenpeace and is a resident of the District of Columbia. Mr. PASSACANTANDO was peaceably and lawfully bicycling to work on September 27, 2002 when he entered Pershing Park to observe the political activity there. Thereafter, the police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 31. Plaintiff JOSEPH PHELAN is a student at Hunter College and a resident of the state of New York. On September 27, 2002, Mr. PHELAN was peaceably and lawfully protesting in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 32. PlaintiffNlCOLE PRICHARD is an administrative assistant at the Arca Foundation and
13

, ,

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 14 of 43

a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002, Ms. PRICHARD was riding her bicycle around Washington DC when she found herself amidst the group of bicycling protesters. She was forced by the police department into Pershing Park. She was peaceably and lawfully standing in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues ofexit; and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence ofprobable causec Her bicycle lock was destroyed and her bicycle was confiscated by the MPD. 33. Plaintiff MORGAN RESS is a photographer associated with ABC No Rio, an artists' space in New York City, and a resident of the State ofNew York. On September 27, 2002, he was present in Washington, D.C. to participate in political demonstrations by photographing those events with the intention oflater sharing these political images with others. PlaintiffRESS was peaceably and lawfully standing in Pershing Park when, without notice or waming, police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 34. Plaintiff LAURY SALIGMAN is an employee of Conservation International and a resident of the District of Columbia. On the morning of September 27, 2002, she had been riding her bicycle as part of her routine bicycle race fitness training. She was peaceably and lawfully pausing to rest from her training and observing nearby protesters when, without notice or warning, a police line began forming near her. As she tried to exit the block, the police violently pushed her and knocked her off ofher bicycle and then arrested her.
14

, ,

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 15 of 43

35. Plaintiff MACDONALD SCOTT is a Canadian citizen and resident of the State ofNew York, where he is employed as Membership Coordinator for the National Lawyers Guild. On September 27, 2002, Mr. SCOTT was peaceably and lawfully protesting in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the" absence ofprobable cause.
36. Plaintiff MILES SWANSON is a law student at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, and a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27,2002, Mr. SWANSON, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in the vicinity of Vermont Ave. and K Street when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested Mr. SWANSON in the absence of probable cause.
37. Plaintiff JERI WaHLBERG is a graduate student in a family nurse practitioner program in Vermont, and is also a resident of that state. On September 27, 2002, Ms. WaHLBERG was in Washington, D.C. to attend a nursing conference. From her hotel, Ms. WaHLBERG saw and heard the political assembly in Pershing Park, and went across the street to the Park to particip'ate. Ms. WaHLBERG was peaceably and lawfully standing in the public park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause.
38. PlaintiffLESLEY WOOD is a Canadian citizen and resident of the State of New York,
15

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 16 of 43
where she is a doctoral candidate at Columbia University. On September 27, 2002, Ms.. WOOD was peaceably and lawfully protesting in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause. 39. Plaintiff SAMANTHA YOUNG is a chef at the Tabard Inn and aresident of Virginia; OnSeptember 27, 2002, Ms. YOUNG lawfully rode her bicycle with about sixty other cyclists to convey, by way of example, her support for, and the effectiveness of non-fossil fuel based modes oftransportation. In the vicinity of Pershing Park, Ms. YOUNG was confronted by a police line that had popped up obstructing her movement, she was ordered off ofher bike and into Pershing Park where, without notice or waming, police sUrrounded her with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence ofprobable cause. 40. Plaintiff STEPHEN ZIMMERMAN is a law student at the George Washington University Law School and is a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002, Mr. ZIMMERMAN, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues ofexit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 41. Defendant CHARLES H. RAMSEY is Chief of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. He is a policy maker for the District of Columbia and the D.C.
16

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 17 of 43
Metropolitan Police Department. ChiefRAMSEY was physically present at the site of the mass arrests and political roundups and, on information and belief, planned in advance and gave the orders at the scene for officers to engage in the conduct challenged herein. Mr. RAMSEY is sued in both his official and individual capacity. 42. Defendant ANTHONY WILLIAMS is the Mayor of the District of Columbia and a
policymakerfor the District. Mr. WILLIAMS has approved and ratified the .
unconstitutional conduct challenged herein. He is sued in both his offiCial and individual capacity. 43. Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA is a municipal corporation and constitutes the
.
local government ofWashington, D.C. 44. Defendant D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT has law enforcement
authority within the District of Columbia and engaged in the conduct challenged herein. 45. Defendant GALE A. NORTON is head of the Department of the Interior, the federal
agency encompassing the U.S. Park Police and the National Park Service, which maintains jurisdiction over certain parks and land located within the District of Columbia including Pershing Park, and is alleged to have engaged in joint action with the other defendants in the acts challenged herein. 46. Defendant JOHN ASHCROFT is U.S. Attorney General and head of the Department of Justice, the federal agency encompassing the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, which is alleged to have engaged in joint action with the other defendants in the acts challenged h.erein, including but not limited to, for the purpose of collecting and disseminating intelligence information related to the plaintiffs' and demonstrators' political actions and
17

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 18 of 43
associations. 47. Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA encompasses all federal agencies that had
any role in the violations alleged herein. 48. Defendant UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES are individuals who, and agencies which, engaged in . joint action with the named defendants to deprive plaintiffs oftheir clearly established constitutional rights. The as yet unidentified defendants engaged in the mass arrests and political roundups notwithstanding the absence of probable cause or lawful justification. The officers and their responsible supervisory chain of command are sued in their individual and official capacities. STANDARDS REFLECTED IN THE MPD MASS DEMONSTRATION HANDBOOK 49. As a matter of policy, practice and custom, the MPD in joint action with federal and other agencies, intentionally disrupts and disperses certain targeted mass political assembly and demonstrations in the absence of cause or justification. 50. As a matter ofpractice, custom, and informal policy the MPD routinely violates its own established standards and engages in constitutionally impermissible mass arrests and political round-ups of targeted political demonstrators and activists engaged in mass assembly and political activity and others associating with them. 51. The MPD has issued the "Metropolitan Police Department Handbook for the Management of Mass Demonstrations" (hereinafter the "Mass Demonstration Handbook"). According to the MPD, the Mass Demonstration Handbook is the standard operational guide for dealing with mass demonstrations, and the handbook establishes what the MPD claims to be proper standards, procedures and MPD obligations in that
18

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 19 of 43
context.
52. > According to the MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook, where police intend to disperse a
crowd engaging in a political demonstration, the field commander shall instruct unit
commanders "to issue warnings to the crowd to disperse."
53. The MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook requires as follows:
[A] [1] The issuance ofwarnings shall be of such amplification and repetition as to be heard by the entire assemblage.
[2] Issuances shall be made by the unit commander from stationary vantage points which are observable to the crowd, or to a large number ofparticipants.
[3] Additional warnings, where necessary, shall be given from police vehicles, equipped with public address systems, moving around the crowd.
[4] The warning shall consist of an announcement citing the offenses or violations which are being committed by participants and a request or order, whichever is applicable, that the crowd disperse. Whenever possible, this warning shall be written out prior to announcement, to ensure clarity and accuracy, and consistency, if the warning is repeated.
[5] The entire warning process shall be documented by means of an audio-visual recording, if available.
[B) As a frrst means of dispersing a crowd under static conditions, the unit commander shall attempt to verbally persuade the crowd to disperse of its own accord by announced available exit routes.
[C][l] If, after a reasonable time following the initial warning, the crowd refuses to disperse, the unit commander shall issue a fmal warning ordering the participants to disperse or be subject to arrest.
[2] If, after a reasonable amount of time following the final warning, the crowd continues in its refusal to disperse, the unit commander shall direct that violators be arrested.
54. None of the plaintiffs were afforded benefit or protection of the standards described
above in the MPD-issued Mass Demonstration Handbook. The MPD violated these
standards with respect to plaintiffs and hundreds of others.
THE DEFENDANTS' PLAN FOR POLITICAL ROUNDUPS AND "PREEMPTIVE" ARRESTS 55. The MPD and other defendants had advance knowledge that there was planned a
weekend ofpolitical demonstration activity beginning on Friday, September 27,2002.
19

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 20 of 43
56. Federal and local law enforcement agencies discussed and planned in advance it strategy of "preemptive" action against protesters, as was reported in the Saturday, September 21, 2002 Washington Post.
57. Capitol Police ChiefTerrance W. Gainer participated in these discussions with D.C. and federal law enforcement officials. Treating the protesters as presumptively criminal, and indicating a willingness to act absent probable cause, Gainer explained, "I don't know why we have to wait until after they've inflicted damage."
58. The local and federal plan was, in fact, implemented on September 27,2002. As evidenced by its implementation, the plan consisted ofpolitical round-ups at multiple locations and mass arrests of hundreds of peaceful protesters and any others in their vicinity with no regard as to whether such persons were, in fact, breaking any law.
59. On September 27,2002 District officials made it a crime to be a protester in Washington, D.C., and a crime for others to come near to hear the protesters' message or to join in.
FACTS RELATED TO THE ROUND-UPS NEAR FRANKLIN SQUARE PARK 60. On the morning of September 27,2002 a political assembly of approximately 200 - 300
persons gathered in the area of Franklin Square Park. 61. By approximately 6 - 7 a.m. there was a substantial police presence in the area because of
the anticipated assemblage. 62. Plaintiff McATEER, who was age seventeen at the time, came to the area as an
independent journalist. McATEER was intending to videotape the anticipated political events for publication through the Independent Media Center or other press outlets. 63. McATEER had not even reached Franklin Park when he was detained by an MPD officer, who demanded to know "Are you going to the protest?" The officer searched
20

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 21 of 43
McATEER's backpack before ultimately releasing him. There was no cause for searching McATEER's belongings, and he expressly stated that he did not consent to the search of his belongings. 64. Plaintiff SALIGMAN is a bicycle racer. She had been riding her bicycle as part of her routine racing and fitness training. At the end of her training ride when she saw some demonstrators who were peaceably walking· onto the block together, she paused her bike for the purpose of observing their political activities. Without notice or warning, a police line popped up. Observing this line forming, Ms. SALIGMAN decided to move on so she could shower and go to work. Without any warning, without even an order to "move back," a police officer violently pushed her and knocked her off of her bicycle. The police grabbed her by the scruff of her neck and said "we're taking you in," and arrested her. 65. Plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH and SWANSON went to the Franklin Park area in their capacities as National Lawyers Guild Legal Observers. Such legal observers are routinely at the site of political assemblages and demonstrations for the purpose of observing events, including police misconduct. 66. Plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH and SWANSON were clearly identified as Legal Observers and each wore a high-visibility green flonrescent baseball cap and a green identification tag that identified each as a Legal Observer. 67. On this morning, a group of protesters moved from Franklin Park along K Street and one block north along Vermont Avenue. 68. The MPD erected a police line at the intersection of Vermont and L Streets, blocking
21

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 22 of 43
northbound passage. 69. The MPD then erected a police line at the intersection ofVennont and K Streets,
blocking southbound passage. 70. Movement eastbound and westbound was also blocked by police and/or buildings. 71. Police used force and/or threat of force to impede movement outside of this area. 72. The area within the police1ines became a detention zone, within which scores of
demonstrators, observers, and bystanders were thus seized and arrested within the meaning of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, without probable cause. 73. Plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH, MCATEER and SWANSON were boxed-in by the police lines and had no avenue to exit the scene. 74. The police issued no directives other than to "move back" - a directive that was often issued simultaneously with a blow from a baton. 75. Riot police used their batons offensively and aggressively, yelling at protesters to "move back." Police crammed the detainees into a smaller and smaller area, closing th,eir perimeter with force and violence. This created an atmosphere of increasing fear, provocation and tension. 76. At one point, a storefront window broke and shattered when the police, wielding their batons offensively, pushed a trapped and tightly compressed group of arrestees into the window. The police had ignored the arrestees' pleas to stop the compression. 77. At no time did plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH, McATEER or SWANSON fail to obey a police order.
22

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 23 of 43
78. After surrounding plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH, McATEER and SWANSON with police lines, the police then without probable cause or lawful justification, arrested BARHAM, LEHACH, McATEER and SWANSON along with hundreds of others, mostly political activists and demonstrators.
79. An MPD officer approached Plaintiff BARHAM, who was wearing legal observer identification. The officer asked ifBARHAM was a law student and then threatened BARHAM that his arrest should prevent him from being admitted to the bar.
.80. At no point did any MPD officer do any ofthe following, as is required by the MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook: a. issue a warning for the political demonstration or for others in proximity to the political assemblage to disperse; b. issue any waruings to disperse through the use of arnplification and with such repetition for the entire assemblage to hear; c. issue any warning to disperse from stationary vantage points observable to the crowd or to a large number ofparticipants; d. issue additional warnings given from police vehicles, equipped with public address systems, moving about the crowd. e. make an announcement citing the offenses or violations which were allegedly being committed and issue a request or order that individuals disperse.
81. The MPD prevented dispersal through the actual and threatened use of force, and through unyielding police lines..
82. At no time was there probable cause to arrest plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH, McATEER, SALIGMAN or SWANSON.
83. This unconstitutional mass arrest and round-up was directed and approved by D.C. and MPD policy makers. MPD policy makers and high-ranking officials present during the
23

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 24 of 43
mass arrest included Chief of Police Charles Ramsey, Sgt. Joseph Gentile, and Lt. Jeffrey Herold, among others.
FACTS RELATING TO THE ROUND-UPS OF PERSONS LAWFULLY RIDING BICYCLES IN SUPPORT OF ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUEL USAGE
84. On September 27, 2002 approximately sixty to seventy persons met at Union Station for the purpose ofengaging in a lawful bicycle ride and to demonstrate, by way of example, their support for alternatives to oil and gasoline consumption and the pollution caused by such fuels.
85. By law and regulation, bicycles are allowed to traverse the roadways in the District of Columbia.
86. At approximately 8:30a.m. on September 27,2002 plaintiffs JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCm LEGLER and SAMANTHA YOUNG met at Union Station.
87. It was the intention ofplaintiffs GARCIA-SPITZ, LEGLER, LEGLER and YOUNG to embark upon this lawful bicycle ride from Union Station over to the Freedom Plaza area, where they understood a political demonstration was to take place, and from there to go their separate ways, to work or school or elsewhere.
88. The police were aware ofthis well publicized bike ride, and they maintained a substantial presence in the vicinity of Union Station.
89. At approximately 8:30 a.m., the bicyclists began their ride. None of the law enforcement officers directed the bike riders to not ride their bikes, and the police did not obstmct the start of this lawful and political endeavor..
24

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 25 of 43
90. As soon as the bike ride started, however, mobile police lines popped up - - consisting of officers on bicycles and on motorcycles and in motor vehicles - - surrounding these plaintiffs and the bicyclists on all sides.
91. By virtue of their police lines, the police controlled the movement of the bicyclists. When police wanted to stop the bicyclists, the front line of officers would wave and direct that those following behind them should stop, Thosewho sought to leave the bike ride by exiting through the side mobile police lines would be prevented from doing so. In this regard, the bicyclists were already seized by the police as they were riding in a mobile detention zone. However, the presence of the mobile police lines was interpreted by some as an escort and it did not interfere with plaintiffs GARCIA-SPITZ, LEGLER, LEGLER and YOUNG's original and lawful intention to traverse the roadways peaceably and lawfully upon their bikes.
92. The bicyclists obeyed all traffic laws· during this bike ride, including obeying all directives from the police.
93. There was no attempt by the police to obstruct the bike ride as it proceeded, nor did the police suggest that there was even any problem. Some of the cyclists even misinterpreted the police escort as a measure of support or success.
94. As the bike ride entered its final leg near the Freedom Plaza and Pershing Park area the cyclists were confronted by a stationary police line in their way.
95. The police forced the bicyclists into Pershing Park which is across from Freedom Plaza and which held about 300 demonstrators at that time. The police ordered them off of their bicycles. The cyclists complied, as this was about where they intended to terminate their
25

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 26 of 43
ride, and many initially thought there was nothing wrong. 96. However, a few minutes later when plaintiffs CASEY LEGLER and her partner
SAMANTHA YOUNG attempted to leave Pershing Park because they had to go to work later that day, they were told by the police that "no one is allowed to' leave the park." 97. The police had surrounded these plaintiffs and the park, using police lines that had ,popped up on all sides, and refused to letanyone leave the park. 98. One officer told CASEY LEGLER and YOUNG that they were not allowed to leave becaus,e their bikes were displaying "propaganda." The officer told them that they could leave if they removed the propaganda, which consisted in part of a sign displaying a women's symbol. They complied with the officer's request removing their First Amendment protected materials. The officer took their signs and destroyed them, and then continued to refuse to let them leave. 99. CASEY LEGLER and YOUNG approached an MPD Lieutenant and asked why they were not being allowed to leave and if they were being arrested. 100. The Lieutenant advised that "At this point in time Ma'am, we are just following orders." 101. The defendants refused to allow plaintiffs GARCIA-SPITZ, LEGLER, LEGLER and YOUNG to disperse or leave the park and subsequently falsely arrested each in the , manner described below. FACTS RELATING TO THE ROUND-UPS OF PERSONS IN PERSHING PARK 102. Demonstrators began gathering in parkland near the intersection of 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, between approximately 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. on September 27, 2002. 103. Demonstrators had planned to engage to protest in Freedom Plaza, which is adjacent to
26

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 27 of 43
Pershing Park. However, police officers directed demonstrators into Pershing Park and the political assemblage gathered there. 104. Pershing Park is a public forum under the jurisdiction ofthe United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 105. Plaintiffs MARY CANALES and SALLY NORTON are each registered nurses who were in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of attending a nursing conference, "Advancing Nursing Practice Excellence: State of the Science," which was being held at the Marriott Hotel that is near Pershing Park. 106. Drs. CANALES and NORTON decided to leave the Marriott Hotel to get breakfast, which they did at approximately 8:30 a.m. They were aware, from news reports, that there were demonstrations anticipated in Washington, D.C. that day, and they saw that demonstrators were gathered at Pershing Park. After picking up coffee, they entered the park in order to listen to any political speakers that might be giving a speech there. 107. There was an evident police presence, but no indication to' Doctors CANALES or NORTON that there was a problem. They passed by the police and entered without. event. 108. At about the same time, plaintiff JERI WaHLBERG, a graduate student in nursing who was presenting research at the conference at the Marriott, decided that she wanted to participate in the demonstration in Pershing Park. She knew of the demonstration from the media coverage and wished to support its political message. She could hear and see the demonstration from the Marriott. She, too, entered the park passing by the police who were not indicating any inuninent police round-up or similar problem. Ms. WaHLBERG
27

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 28 of 43
met up with plaintiffs CANALES and NORTON in the park. 109. Plaintiffs WaHLBERG, CANALES and NORTON all observed what was occurring in
Pershing park at that time, just before the mass arrest and political round-up: dancing, singing and assembly. Some people were rhythmically beating drums. Many protesters held signs protesting corporate globalization and greed. Other signs advocated for peace, against war in Iraq,- and bore messages such as "bread not bombs." Clearly it was a gathering of individuals engaging in political speech, assembly and camaraderie. 110. At a time between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., the bicyclists were forced into the Park, and shortly thereafter police lines were erected without any notice or warning. Many of those surrounded had no immediate awareness that they bad been trapped and seized. 111. A session of the nursing conference was set to begin at 9:45 a.m. CANALES, NORTON and WaHLBERG found, however, that they had been surrounded by these police lines that had silently popped up on all sides. They found unyielding police lines in every direction, with many officers in intimidating, black, full riot gear. They attempted to leave and asked permission to leave ofno less than five separate officers. They explained they had to attend the conference, and displayed their conference tote bags. 112. This was similar to the experiences that other plaintiffs who happened also to be in the park were having. 113. Plaintiff WlLLIAM DURHAM went to Pershing Park as a protester. He arrived at the park, and observed a drum circle there with people cheering and chanting. Soon thereafter, he and others realized that police lines had popped up on all sides. The police refused to allow DURHAM to leave.
28

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 29 of 43

114. Plaintiff NOAH FALK is a law stndent at the George Washington University School of

Law. He was in Pershing Park in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal

Observer, and was clearly identifiable as such based on the flourescent green Legal

. Observer cap and green badge he was displaying. FALK was lawfully standing in the

park when he found himself surrounded by police lines.

115, Plaintiff MARK JACKSON is an independent contractor with the Underground Railroad

and Freedom Center, and works with a curator at the American History Museum. He was

not protesting, but had walked over to the park and planned to head to work when he

found himself surrounded by police lines that had quietly popped up. He asked to be

allowed past the police line, but the police refused him passage, explaining "we can't let

you out."

(

116. Plaintiff JOHN PASSACANTANDO had been riding his bicycle to work that morning to

avoid what had been predicted to be difficult traffic. He stopped near Pershing Park to

observe the protest. Thereafter he, too, found himself surrounded by police lines on all

sides with police refusing to let him leave" PASSACANTANDO asked no less than a

dozen officers at different locations to be allowed to leave and go on his way, but he was

told repeatedly that he was not allowed to leave. A number of the officers advised that

they were acting under "orders."
)
117. Plaintiff JOSEPH PHELAN is a stndent at Hunter College in New York, and was present

in Pershing Park to participate in the protests. When he sought to leave the park, MPD

officers told him he could not leave. He asked one officer "Am I being detained" and

was told "no." When he then said, "So we can leave," the officer stated "If you try to

29

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 30 of 43 (~>-\ '..,--~,~
leave, you'll be arrested." 118. PlaintiffNICOLE PRICHARD was riding her bicycle around the City when she found
herself amidst the group ofprotesters on bicycles. She was almost immediately thereafter forced into Pershing Park, where she found herself surrounded by police lines on all sides and, when she sought to leave, was told by an MPD officer "no one goes in and no one goes out unless on that [mass arrest] bus." 119. Plaintiff MORGAN RESS is an artist who works with ABC No Rio, an artist space on the lower east side of Manbattan, NY. RESS was in Pershing Park as a demonstrator and as a photographer and artist. He heard the sound of protest drums in the park, entered the park, and soon found that the police had formed lines around the park He asked multiple officers if he could please leave, and each refused to let him go. Some officers were silent, others told him to go to another police line. when he did so he would either be directed to go to yet another police line or would be met with silence. One officer explained, "Our orders are no one leaves the park" 120. Plaintiff MACDONALD SCOTT is employed as the Membership Coordinator for the National Lawyers Guild in New York City. He was peacefully protesting in the park when he found himself surrounded on all sides by police lines. He requested of at least five police officers that they allow him to leave the park, and each time was refused. 121. Plaintiff LESLEY WOOD is a doctoral candidate at Columbia University. She was peacefully protesting in Pershing Park when without notice or warning the police formed lines around the park She requested of at least five police officers that they allow her to leave the park, and each time was refused.
30

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 31 of 43
122. Plaintiff STEPHEN ZIMMERMAN is a law student at George Washington University Law School and was a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer present in Pershing Park when police surrounded the park. He tried to leave, but was not allowed.
123. At no time did any of plaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM, FALK., GARCIA-SPITZ, JACKSON, LEGLER, LEGLER, NORTON, PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD, RESS,SCOTT, WaHLBERG, WOOD, YOUNG, or ZIMMERMANfailto obey a police order.
124. The police actions in the vicinity of Pershing Park were executed by MPD police, U.S. Park Police under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, and other as-yetunidentified law enforcement agencies and officers.
125. After surrounding plaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM, FALK, GARCIA-SPITZ, JACKSON, LEGLER, LEGLER, NORTON,PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD,RESS, SCOTT, WaHLBERG, WOOD, YOUNG and ZIMMERMAN with police lines, the police then without probable cause or lawful justification, arrested each of them along with hundreds of others, mostly political activists and demonstrators.
126. At no point did any MPD officer do any of the following, as is required by the MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook: a. issue a warning for the political demonstration or for others in proximity to the political assemblage to disperse; b. issue any warnings to disperse through the use of amplification and with such repetition for the entire assemblage to hear; . c. issue any warning to disperse from stationary vantage points observable to the crowd or to a large number of participants; .d. issue additional warnings given from police vehicles, equipped with public
31

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 32 of 43
address systems, moving about the crowd. e. make an announcement citing the offenses or violations which were allegedly
being committed and issue a request or order that individuals disperse. 127. The MPD and other police prevented dispersal through the actual and threatened use of
force, and through unyielding police lines. 128.. At no time was there probable cause to arrest any ofplaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM,
FALK, GARCIA-SPITZ, JACKSON, LEGLER, LEGLER, NORTON, PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD, RESS, SCOTT, WOHLBERG, WOOD, YOUNG or ZIMMERMAN. 129. The police used pop up police lines to unlawfully seize and detain hundreds of political activists and those who associated with them o,r were within physical proximity of their political assemblage. The police then executed a new phase of the police plan. 130. Riot police used their batons offensively and aggressively, yelling at protesters to "move in, move in!" and telling them "You cannot leave, move, move!" Police crannned the detainees into a smaller and smaller area, closing their perimeter with force and violence. This created an atmosphere of increasing fear, provocation and tension. 131. It appeared to somethat the police were trying to provoke a violent reaction from those they were abusing. 132. Protesters responded by yelling at each other "Do what they say!" and "Cover your head!" 133. Police continued pushing protesters with violence and force. At points the perimeter was collapsing inward with such a fierce pace that different officers were ordering people to move in different directions.
32

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 33 of 43 /,_0,,,,\ "',~,,)
134. All of the plaintiffs obeyed the police's unlawful orders. 135. The arrestees were tightly compacted in the Southwest comer ofthe Park. 136. Small groups ofMPD officers began a process of crossing the police line, grabbing an
individual, dragging that individual to the outside of the police line, violently throwing him or her face down to the ground, using three of four officers to exert force upon the non-resisting arrestee, handcuffing him or her, and placing him or her on a bus. 137. This happened to the first four or five people in a row, until the most violent officers were restrained by other officers and told to calm down.
FACTS COMMON TO THE PROCESSING OF PLAINTIFFS 138. The plastic handcuffs placed on many individuals were excessively tight. All plaintiffs
experienced pain, and many experienced swelling and numbness from the handcuffs. 139. Arrested individuals were held on busses for many hours, with their hands handcuffed
behind their backs. . 140. Sequential busloads of arrested individuals were eventually taken off the bus and brought
into the gymnasium of the Institute for Police Science at Blue Plains. They were then shackled and hog-tied with their right wrists handcuffed to their left ankles. Some were left in this position for many hours. 141. Inside the gyunmsium, law enforcement officials photographed the individuals arrested. Photographs were taken of some arrestees that were in addition to their "mug shots." Some demonstrators with political statements on their clothing were singled out and photographed with greater scrutiny. 142. The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, whose agents
33

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 34 of 43
sometimes displayed FBI identification, participated in this mass collection of data. This data has been recorded and collected in databases, record-keeping or other information systems and, on information and belief, has also been disseminated or made available to unknown agencies and entities. 143. The MPD maintains a policy, practice or custom of treating persons arrested in connection with mass politicalalTests differently than others who have been arrested for similar minor offenses. 144. The MPD maintains a policy, practice and custom ofpreventive detention for targeted persons or groups engaged in political activity. By way of example, documents secured through subpoena in International Action Center, et al. v. U.S.A.. et al. include production notes for an MPD training video related to mass demonstrations, in which the section on "Police Tactics and Issues" includes "Tactics - Locking up the troublemakers on the first night." 145. The MPD maintains a policy, practice and custom of holding targeted political arrestees who have been (falsely) charged only with minor offenses for extended periods oftime, in order to take them off of the streets and prevent them from engaging in further political dissent on subsequent days of demonstration, and to induce fatigue through sleep deprivation. By way of example, documents secured through subpoena in International Action Center, et al. v. United States of America, et al. include production notes for an MPD training video related to mass demonstrations, in which the section on "Police Tactic,S and Issues" includes "Tactics - Sleep deprivation tactics." 146. The MPD ordinarily allows qualified persons to "post and trial" - - which means that the
34

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 35 of 43
arrestee can post collateral in order to secnre prompt release and can return for a futnre trial date on which the arrestee may challenge the legality of her arrest. 147. However, similarly situated persons as part of a mass political arrests or roundups are refused this option, to "post and trial." Instead, it is the policy, practice and/or custom of the MPD that targeted political arrestees are offered only the option to "post andforfeit" collateraL Police advise targeted political arrestees that, should they opt to challenge the legality of their arrest, they will not be released for an extended period of days. The period of threatened additional confinement and jail ranges arbitrarily from between two days to a week or more. 148. Plaintiffs were confined by defendants into the middle of the night or until the following day, for approximate periods oftime ranging from no less than 14 honrs to over 30 honrs.
Unconstitutional Policies ofthe MPD 149. The MPD, and those federal agencies which act jointly with the MPD and its "Civil
Distnrbance Units," maintain the policy, practice and/or custom of abusing their state authority to distnrb and disrupt targeted civil political assembly and mass demonstrations. 150. The CDUs also accomplish their disruption strategy through their established practice and policy ofpreventive .detention ofpolitical activists, in which the CDUs will trap, seize and arrest groups of protesters by closing off all avenues of exit with riot gear clad police. 151. The MPD and its CDUs maintain the policy, practice and/or custom of deploying police lines where circumstances do not justify such deployment and for the purpose of disrupting First Amendment protected assembly, speech and petition activities.
35

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 36 of 43
152. These riot squads use force and the threat of force to enforce this preventive detention, in which they arrest and hold detainees for a significant period of time. Absent intervening circumstances, the detainees will be placed on mass arrest busses and held for significant periods of time, typically overnight.
153. Preventive detention signifies that individuals are being arrested not for engaging in illegal activity but for engaging in political activity, and constitutes a severe violation of First andFourth Amendment rights when applied against political demonstrators.
154. The use of disruption and disturbance tactics by the MPD is an established custom, policy and practice of the MPD, as evidenced by the repeated use, the approval of, and the acquiescence in the use of such tactics by policy making officials of the District of Columbia.
155. DC policy maker Mayor Anthony Williams has stated his approval of the MPD's tactics, referring to arrest tactics of the MPD, as executed on April 15, 2000 (and repeated on Inauguration Day) as "preventative" and "proactive." Preventive detention and false arrest, whether referred to as "preventative arrest" or "proactive arrest," when applied to a targeted group ofpersons seeking to exercise constitutionally protected rights, in the absence ofprobable cause, is unconstitutional.
156. MPD policy makers approve of these tactics, which they have used repeatedly, and which are the subject ofpending litigation related to their use on Inaugurntion Day (International Action Center et al. v. United States et al., 01-CV-72) and on Apri115, 2000 (Fifty Years Is Enough et al. v. District ofColumbiaet al., 01-CV-811).
157. On September 27,2002, the CDUs and other MPD officers were deployed for these
36

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 37 of 43
unconstitutional purposes. 158. On September 27,2002, the Department of the Interior deployed U.S. Park Police to act
jointly with the MPD in carrying out this unconstitutional disruption strategy. Additional other individual officers and outside agencies which have yet to be identified also engaged in the same joint action. 159. The MPD maintains the policy, practice and/or custom of processing and treating disparately those persons arrested for minor offenses in connection with political mass arrests or round-ups. The disparate processing and treatment includes confinement for extended period of time including often overnight for alleged minor offenses, and the < failure to offer political mass arrestees the post and trial option. 160. The above-referenced policies and customs demonstrated a deliberate indifference on the part ofpolicymakers ofthe District of Columbia to the constitutional rights ofprotesters in the Nation's Capital, as well as all those who would associate with such protesters or report on them as media. 161. The actions of the above-referenced defendants violated the following clearly established and well settled federal constitutional rights: a. Freedom from the unreasonable seizure of one's person; b. Freedom from government disruption of, interference with, or retaliation for,
engagement in free speech, assembly, association, petition and free press activities. 162. The challenged actions and omissions constitute deliberate indifference on the part of the District of Columbia, the federal defendants and other defendants to the constitutional rights of protesters in the Nation's Capital.
37

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 38 of 43
163. As a direct and proximate result ofthe acts or omissions of the defendants identified in this complaint and the other unidentified agents and agencies acting jointly, each ofthe plaintiffs has snffered monetary and non-monetary harm including deprivation of constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, loss ofliberty, as well as physical harm, emotional pain and suffering.
Ongoing Injury to Plaintiffs 164. Plaintiffs all suffer continued adverse and deterrent effects from the above-referenced
conduct. 165. Defendants' illegal conduct subjects protesters and observers and all those who associate
.with protesters to unconstitutional obstacles to the exercise oftheir rights. There is an intended, ongoing and continued deterrent effect caused by defendant's conduct, in that protesters and others must face the reasonable fear that merely by assembling and exercising their right to free speech (or to listen to speech), they will risk being subject to the unlawful tactics ofthe MPD and federal law enforcement, the risk offalse imprisonment and false arrest and preventive detention, as well as the exposure to force and the threatened use of force by officers working with the mobile police lines. 166. Plaintiffs intend to, in the future, engage in or associate with First Amendment protected activities in Washington, D.C. and seek injunctive reliefto prevent future . unconstitutional disruption.
CLAIMS
COUNT I False Arrests at Vermont Avenue (First Amendment; Fourth Amendment; False Imprisonment; Fourteenth Amendment)
38

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 39 of 43
\,-"=-,/
167. Paragraphs 1 - 166 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 168. Defendants' actions in deploying law enforcement units to disrupt First Amendment
protected activity and subjecting plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH, McATEER, SALIGMAN AND SWANSON to false imprisonment and arrest violated the Fourth Amendment rights of those individuals seized, constituted false imprisonment under District·of Columbia law, and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of each of the aforementioned plaintiffs.
COUNT II False Arrests at Pershing Park (First Amendment; Fourth Amendment; False Imprisonment; Fourteenth Amendment) 169. Paragraphs 1 - 166 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 170. Defendants' actions in deploying law enforcement units to disrupt First Amendment protected activity and subjecting plaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM, FALK, JACKSON, GARCIA-SPITZ, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, NORTON, PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD, RESS, SCOTT, WOHLBERG, WOOD, YOUNG and ZlMME~ to false imprisonment and arrest violated the Fourth Amendment rights of those indiViduals seized, constituted false imprisonment under District of Columbia law, and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of each of the aforementioned plaintiffs.
COUNTll (Equal Protection Clause; Due Process Clause; First Amendment; Fourth Amendment) 171. Paragraphs 1 - 166 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 172. Defendants' actions in processing and treating differently those adult persons, including
all adult plaintiffs, who are arrested for minor offenses in connection with mass political
39

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 40 of 43
arrests violate the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights ofthose so deprived.
COUNT IV (conversion; trespass to chattel) 173. Paragraphs 1 - 166 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 174. Upon arresting plaintiff McATEER, defendant District of Columbia seized plaintiffs video camera and related items and never returned the video camera and related items and converted them to its own use. 175. Upon arresting plaintiff SCOTT, defendant District of Columbia destroyed plaintiffs backpack by cutting through the arm straps, thereby converting it to its own use. 176. Plaintiffs CHARLCIE LEGLER and GARCIA-SPITZ had lawfully locked their bicycles outside ofPershing Park prior to entering and their subsequent arrest. Defendant District of Columbia destroyed their bicycle locks and damaged their bicycles in the subsequent seizure of their bicycles, converting the bicycle locks to its own use and committing a trespass to the bicycles.
Count V (negligence and negligent supervision) 177. Paragraphs 1 - 166 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 178. The as-yet-unidentified individual officers and supervisors involved in these unlawful arrests had the duty to exercise reasonable care in the conduct towards plaintiffs. 179. The individual supervisors, including Chief Ramsey and his downward chain-ofcommand had the duty to exercise appropriate command authority in their supervision of their subordinates.
40

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 41 of 43

180. Individual officers and supervisors were negligent in the exercise of these duties of care owed to plaintiffs.
181. As a direct and proximate cause of these defendants' negligence, plaintiffs suffered the harms complained of herein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
182. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Courtgrant the
J
following relief:

A. Entry of a declaratory judgment that the disruption and preventive arrest tactics of the MPD and its Civil Disturbance Units and law enforcement authorities constitute violations of the First and Fourth Amendments;

B. Entry of a permanent injunction to enjoin and prohibit defendants from executing the unlawful disruption and preventive arrest tactics as are employed by the MPD and its Civil Disturbance Units and law enforcement authorities in conjunction with federal law enforcement including but not limited to the unconstitutional use of pop-up police lines and the unconstitutional boxing-in tactic;

C. Entry of a permanent injunction mandating that the MPD offer the "post
and trial" option to those persons arrested for minor offenses in connection with mass political arrests as are offered to non-political arrestees, and ordering the MPD to provide in writing to all mass protest arrestees a clear and accurate statement of their rights to release, and ordering the MPD to make periodic reports to plaintiffs and the Court documenting that this injunction is being abided by;

D. Entry of a permanent injnnction barring the MPD from subjecting to a more harsh and/or longer period of processing and confinement to those persons arrested for minor offenses in conjunction with mass political arrests, and ordering the MPD to maintain written documentation as to the period of confinement before release of all mass protest arrestees, as compared to all arrestees;

E. Entry of a permanent injunction barring the MPD from threatening or

actually jailing for longer periods those persons arrested in connection

with mass political arrests who wish to challenge the legality of their

arrest by seeking a trial date (as distinguished from those who choose to

forfeit collateral);

.

41

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 42 of 43

F. Entry of an order that all arrest records, including all photographs, fingerprints and other identification or descriptive information regarding plaintiffs be sealed; that disclosure be made in writing to plaintiffs and the Court as to all entities and agencies to which such material has been disseminated and by whom gathered; and that all records disseminated be collected and sealed, including all copies of such disseminated records that may have been subject to further dissemination by others;

G. Entry of a permanent injunction barring the Department of Justice, including the FederalBureauofInvestigation, and other-federal agencies from taking or accessing identification and other information compelled by political arrests by local law enforcement authorities;

H. Compensatory damages against the District of Columbia and the unknown named police departments for violations offederal rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in an amount appropriate to the proof adduced at trial;

I.

Compensatory damages against the District of Columbia, for violations of

common law rights, pursuant to respondeat superior, in an amount

appropriate to the proof adduced at trial;

J.

Compensatory damages and punitive damages against Ramsey, Williams,

and the unknown named police officers sued in their individual capacities

for violations of federal rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (if they are

D.C. or state actors or in joint action with state or D.C. actors) or pursuant

to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of

Narcotics (if they are federal agents or in joint action with federal agents)

in an amount appropriate to the proof adduced at trial;

K. Compensatory damages against the federal defendants sued in their individual capacities, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), in an amount appropriate to the proofadduced at trial;

L. Compensation by the responsible party for the value ofproperty that was .damaged or destroyed or converted;

M. Compensation by the responsible parties for negligence and riegligent supervIsIOn;

N. An award of plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and

O. Such other and further relief', including all appropriate equitable relief, as to the Court may seem just and proper.

42

,, .<,

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 1 Filed 11/19/02 Page 43 of 43

Car essineo (#450033) Mara Verheyden-Hilliard (#430031) Zachary Wolfe (#463548) PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE, INC. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
MASS DEFENSE COMMITTEE 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 607 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 530-5630 (202) 530-5634 - facsimile
Counselfor Plaintijjs

43

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 3 Filed 02/07/03 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, ET AL. Plaintiffs

v.

Civil Action No. 02-CV-2283 (RMU)

CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ET AL. Defendants

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE Plaintiffs move the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1), for an order determining that this action will be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to the claims ofthe following class: All persons who were arrested on September 27, 2002 as part of the mass arrests of persons that took place in Pershing Park. Plaintiffs also move the Court pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2) for an order directing (1) that defendants shall provide to plaintiffs within thirty days of the date of the order the name of each class member and (a) the current address of each class member, or (b) all documents or records in the defendants' possession, custody or control that would assist plaintiffs in determining the class member's current address (including, but not limited to, social security number, date of birth, any known former addresses, current or former telephone numbers, addresses of next of kin, etc.); (2) that within thirty days after the defendants provide to plaintiffs a class member's current address~ or defendants' documents pertaining to that class member, plaintiffs, at their expense, shall provide to the class member first class mail notification of the action and the matters stated in Rule 23(c)(A) through (C), with the "specified date" under Rule 23(c)(2)(A) being thirty days after the mailing of the notice; (3) that class members' responses should be mailed to counsel for

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 3 Filed 02/07/03 Page 2 of 10
plaintiffs; and (4) that plaintiffs shall file the responses with the Court and serve copies on
defendants.
A copy ofthis motion is being served upon defendants contemporaneously with the
service ofthe First Amended Complaint in this matter, along with a request for defendants'
consent. Should consent be secured, plaintiffs shall advise the Court through praecipe or other
appropriate mechanism.
Respectfully submitted,
Messin (#450033 Verheyden-Hilliard (#430031) Zachary Wolfe (#463548) PAR1NERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE, INC. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD MASS DEFENSE COMMITIEE 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 607 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 530-5630 (202) 530-5634 - facsimile
Counselfor Plaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 3 Filed 02/07/03 Page 3 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, ET AL. Plaintiffs

v.

Civil Action No. 02-CV-2283 (RMU)

CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ET AL. Defendants

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE The proposed class, and their claims, satisfy the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3).
Class Allegations The Class Allegations regarding the mass false arrests in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002 are set forth in the First Amended Complaint at ,,138-145.
Class Members So Numerous that Joinder is Impractical The class of persons subjected to the mass arrest on September 27,2002 is composed of approximately 400+ persons. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impraticable. Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770 (3rd Cir. 1985) (ninety); Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, 726 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1984) (seventy-four); Carlisle v. LTV Electrosystems. Inc., 54 F.R.D. 237 (N.D. Tex. 1972) (forty-eight).
Common Questions of Law and Fact There are questions of law and fact common to the class. These questions include whether defendants (1) violated the class members' First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and their common law rights against false arrest and false imprisonment by detaining and arresting virtually all participants and observers of a peaceful political assembly and

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 3 Filed 02/07/03 Page 4 of 10
demonstration without lawful justification; (2) subjected the arrestees to extended harsh conditions of confmement including, but not limited to, being hogtied wrist-to-ankle for hours; and (3) deliberately misinformed arrestees of their rights to post collateral and appear at a hearing to contest the arrest. All arrestees were detained in the park at the same location as a group in one singular police action against the class members collectively, were arrested and taken into custody in the same singular police action at the same time and as a group, and were confmed in common or similar harsh conditions. Defendants violated plaintiffs' rights by common or similar conduct against each class member.
Typicalities of Representatives' Claims With respect to defendants' liability, the claims of the class representatives are typical of the class. No fact material to defendants' liability to the representatives is atypical or peculiar to the representatives generally.
Adequacy of the Class Representatives The class representatives and their legal counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. There is no evidence of any material conflicts of interests between the representatives and any member of the class. Counsel for the plaintiffs are able and experienced federallitigators and are fully qualified to represent the class.
Predominance of the Common Questions The circumstances of the false arrest of the class members was virtually identical, as all arrestees were detained in Pershing Park at the same location as a group in one singular police action against the class members collectively, were arrested and taken into custody in the same singular police action at the same time and as a group, and were confined in common or similar harsh conditions. Though some plaintiff class members may have suffered a type of injury that

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 3 Filed 02/07/03 Page 5 of 10
others did not, such as the deprivation ofaccess to medication for a condition not generally suffered by others, the overwhelming majority of injuries were similar or suffered in common. The common questions of law and fact bearing upon the lack of probable cause or lawful justification to arrest, not questions of unique injury, are the predominant questions presented.
According to Peter Lavalee, the D.C. Corporation Counsel's communication director as quoted in the Washington City Paper, "We no-papered everything in Pershing Park. We did not feel in the cases that came from Pershing Park - that the witness statements and the evidence that we had [presented] probable cause that a crime was committed and/or that a specific individual committed a crime.,,1
To plaintiffs' knowledge, no other litigation has been commenced concerning class claims. Chang, et al. v. District ofColumbia, et al., 02-CV-02010 has been filed, which arises out ofthe same events, and presents individual claims of seven George Washington University students who were falsely arrested.
Concentration ofthe class action in this Court would be appropriate, as it would be convenient for the defendants. Plaintiffs, many from within the District and others from outside the District, briefly converged in Pershing Park and are now dispersed around the country. Hence, there is no alternative forum that would be more convenient for the plaintiff class.
Plaintiffs foresee no difficulty in managing the case as a class action, which is advantageous in terms ofjudicial and litigation economy.
I Jason Cherkis, "Boss Hogtie: Police Chief Charles Ramsey had a plan for the more than 400 people in Pershing Park last September: Arrest them all, detain them for hours, and then tie them wrist to ankle for 12 hours. He says he'll do it again," The Washington City Paper, January 17-23,2003 at 20, 23.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 3 Filed 02/07/03 Page 6 of 10
Proposed Method of Notice
Plaintiffs' proposed method of notice, fIrst class mail, with plaintiffs bearing the expense,
is proper. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974). Since plaintiff class members were
defendants' arrestees and prisoners, whose identity information was required to be recorded on
standard processing and release forms, it is appropriate that defendants be ordered to provide
plaintiffs available information concerning class members' identities and locations, so that
plaintiffs may provide the best notice possible.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs respectfully request that their
motion be granted.
Resp ~ submitted,
,7l!~~
Car Messmeo (#450033) Mara Verheyden-Hilliard (#430031) Zachary Wolfe (#463548) PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE, INC. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
MASS DEFENSE COMMITTEE 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 607 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 530-5630 (202) 530-5634 - facsimile
Counselfor Plaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 3 Filed 02/07/03 Page 7 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, ET AL. Plaintiffs

v.

Civil Action No. 02-CV-2283 (RMU)

CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ET AL. Defendants

ORDER Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for class certification and notice, any opposition and reply thereto, it is this _ _ day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2003, hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs motion is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that this action will be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to the claims ofthe following class: All persons who were arrested on September 27, 2002 as part of the mass arrests of persons that took place in Pershing Park; and it
IS
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall provide to plaintiffs within thirty days of the date of this order the name of each class member and (a) the current address of each class member, or (b) all documents or records in the defendants' possession, custody or control that would assist plaintiffs in determining the class member's current address (including, but not limited to, social security number, date of birth, any known former addresses, current or former telephone numbers, addresses of next of kin, etc.); and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs, within thirty days after the defendants provide to plaintiffs a class member's current address or defendants' documents pertaining to that class

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 3 Filed 02/07/03 Page 8 of 10
member, plaintiffs shall at plaintiffs' expense provide to the class member first class mail
notification of the action and the matters stated in Ru1e 23(c)(A) through (C), with the "specified
date" under Rule 23(c)(2)(A) being thirty days after the mailing of the notice; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that class members' responses shou1d be mailed to counsel for
plaintiffs that plaintiffs shall file the responses with the Court and serve copies on defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
copies to:
Carl Messineo Mara Verheyden-Hilliard Zachary Wolfe PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL mSTICE, INC. 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 607 Washington, DC 20006
Chief Charles H. Ramsey Chiefof Police Metropolitan Police Department 300 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20020,
District of Columbia 441 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 2000I,
D.C. Metropolitan Police Department 441 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001,
Anthony Williams Mayor District of Columbia 441 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 2000 I,

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 3 Filed 02/07/03 Page 9 of 10
Gale A. Norton Secretary of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240,
John Ashcroft Attorney General ofthe United States U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 3 Filed 02/07/03 Page 10 of 10
Certificate of Senice As of the time of filing, defendants have not been served with the Swnmons and initial Complaint in this matter. The foregoing, therefore, shall be served with the service of process, as will be reflected in the Return of Service.

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 1 of 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM

MICHAEL LEHACH
~
BRIAN MCATEER
,
LAURY SALIGMAN
MILES SWANSON

Civil Action No. 02-CV-2283 (RMU) Jury Trial Demanded

(Class Action Plaintiffs follow below)

MARY CANALES

WILLIAM DURHAM

NOAHFALK

JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ

MARK ALLAN JACKSON

CASEY LEGLER

CHARLCIE LEGLER

SALLY A. NORTON

JOHN PASSACANTANDO

JOSEPH PHELAN

. NICOLE PRICHARD

MORGANRESS

MACDONALD SCOTT

JERI WOHLBERG

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 2 of 46
r'\
'''--,/
LESLEY WOOD DEVON YATES 1135 North St Clair , Pittsburgh, PA 15206 SAMANTHA YOUNG STEPHEN ZIMMERMAN
on behalfofthemselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs,
v.
CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al. Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment; False Arrest and
Imprisonment; Conversion; Negligence) OVERVIEW
1. On September 27,2002, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in joint action with federal law enforcement agencies (and unidentified other local or federal agencies) once again deployed its Civil Disturbance Units to disrupt political protest in the Nation's Capital; and to punish with unlawful detention and false arrest those who engaged in lawful civil dissent on this first day ofa weekend ofplanned demonstrations, as well as those interested non-protesters or political sympathizers who approached the demonstrations to hear the political message or engage in political discussion.
2. The F.B.I. used these mass arrests as a mass intelligence gathering operation. Working in
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 3 of 46

\/

conjunction with federal law enforcement agencies, including the F.B.I., the D.C. police

department compelled identification information from those it falsely arrested as a

condition ofthe arrest, confinement and release. The F.B.I. and other local and federal

law enforcement agencies collected intelligence and identification information on lawful

political activists, their activities, and others who associated with or were in proximately

to the demonstrations.

3. This lawsuit challenges what have become systematized mechanisms of government

disruption offree speech and assembly to criminaIize dissent, and in particular the tactics,

deployment, and use of Civil Disturbance Units by the D.C. Metropolitan Police

Department acting in conjunction with federal and other law enforcement authorities,

against peaceful protesters. These units, as a matter ofpractice and policy, employ

unconstitutional tactics to disturb, disrupt, infringe upon and criminalize constitutionally

. protected speech and assembly.

4. This complaint is the most recent in a series oflawsuits with a shared factual allegation:

That the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department's Civil Disturbance Units maintain and

execute unconstitutional tactics to disrupt lawful protest and assembly including

specifically the routine use ofmobile police lines to interfere with freedom of association,

assembly, speech and free movement; and the use of administrative detention, false

imprisonment and false arrest tactics in which the CDUs will trap protesters (and others

in physical proximity) on all sides, seize, detain and arrest those trapped/seized in the

absence of probable cause. These actions are accomplished through the use of

paramilitary force and threat of force in order to deprive, interfere with, and deter the

3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 4 of 46
exercise of constitutionally protected rights
5. The earliest filed now-pending case alleging the existence ofthese unconstitutional
disruption strategies and tactics is International Action Center, et al. v. USA, et al., CA 01-00072, which arose out ofthe deployment of these tactics during the Bush Inaugnration demonstrations in January, 2001. The existence of these tactics was also alleged in the subsequently filed litigation 50 Years is Enough. et al. v. District of Columbia, et al., CA 01-00811, which arose out ofthe deployment ofthese tactics during the April, 2000 International Monetary Fund protests. 6. c At each of these demonstrations, the D.C. MPD actions have been coordinated and executed in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, among other U.S. agenCIes. 7. The conduct challenged herein is neither aberrational nor the consequence of overzealous but well intentioned law enforcement. It was the implementation of a pre-designed plan to engage in unconstitutional preemptive arrests intended to round-up political activists and CClock them up in the absence ofprobable cause. U.S. Capitol Police ChiefTerrance Gainer testified - - before the protests - - that he and D.C. police had discussed preemptive action against protesters. 8. When one plaintiffasked why she was being arrested and whether she could please go free, one officer candidly explained that she was being arrested because she was displaying political "propaganda." Others. were let out apparently based on their perceived loyalty to the government. The Washington Post reported that police lines yielded for at least one detainee when he displayed a Department of Justice identification card.
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 5 of 46

9. This complaint additionally alleges that police treat and process those (falsely) arrested in connection with targeted mass political activity differently from 1ihose who are arrested for other minor offenses. Plaintiffs were subjected to more harsh treatment in custody and were hogtied wrist-to-ankle for hours. They were subjected to intentional sleep deprivation and were not released in a matter ofhours as would normally be the case, but, were held into the night and overnight, for up to 30 hours. The purpose of these arrests was not to enforce laws, but to take protesters offof the streets on the first day of a weekend of plamied political events.
10. The District of Columbia maintains a policy, practice andlor custom of denying to those arrested in targeted mass political round-ups the option to be released and "post and trial." This option allows an arrestee to be quickly released from jailor custody by posting collateral and receiving a trial date on which to challenge the legality ofthe arrest. The MPD is advising persons caught in targeted mass political sweeps that they must remain in jailor police custody for an extended period oftime or may secure release only by "post andforfeit," which means the arrestee forfeits the collateral and does not receive the opportunity to challenge the legality ofthe arrest. This disparate treatment, disallowing the post and trial option in the case ofpolitical round-ups, denies those arrestees equal protection under the law, and also subjects those who wish to challenge the legality of their arrest to greater pre-arraigrunent jail or police custody simply because they seek to exercise their constitutional right to defend against an unlawful arrest.
11. Federal agencies coordinate with the MPD in connection with mass political arrests for, among other reasons, using the arrests to collect photographs, fingerprints and other

/

5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 6 of 46
information about politi~al activists an.d their assbCiations. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, among other unidentified federal agencies, collects such data and places it. in information databases and, on information and belief, disseminates and makes such personal information available to other entities. 12. Those who are forCibly arrested and deprived oftheir liberty suffer great fear, harm, and
personal rrgury. The stigma of having been arrested carries on beyond the innnediate
personal and physical consequences ofthe deprivation ofliberty. The collection and dissemination ofpersonal information and political associations effects an invasion and loss of privacy, as well as a profound loss of Constitutional right to be protected when engaging in or·associating with First Amendment protected activity. 13. These round-ups and mass arrests of political activists are anathema to democracy. It is not merely remarkable that such round-ups happen repeatedly in Washington, D.C., but that policy makers emphatically ratifY such,blatantly unconstitutional tactics. 14. "Ain't it a thing of beauty," Chief Ramsey stated on September 27,2002, as he reviewed the officers about to mass arrest hundreds in Pershing Park, "to see our folks up there ready to go." . 15. These challenged police actions create a substantial chilling effect and deterrent to future First Amendment protected activity as the exercise of on,e's political rights in Washington, D.C. now carries with it the risk of arrest, of being wrongfully subject to the criminal process ofthe state, ofbeing threatened with physical harm by the police, being bound with handcuffs, having one's identification and political activities be collected and recorded - - for no reason other than having political associations that have been targeted
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 7 of 46
by the federal government or by the local chief ofpolice or mayor. 16. This complaint seeks, in addition to monetary compensation, injunctive relief enjoining
defendants from engaging in the challenged conduct in the future. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this complaint pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.s.C. § 1343(a)(3) and (4) (civil rights jurisdiction), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).
18. Venue is appropriately vested in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the District of Columbia is a judicial district in which all defendants reside, and, independently because a substantial part ofthe acts or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in,the District of Columbia. PARTIES
19. Plaintiff JEFFREY BARHAM is a law student at the George Washington University School ofLaw and a resident ofthe District of Columbia On September 27, 2002, Mr. BARHAM, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in the vicinity ofVermont Ave. and K Street when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed offall avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested Mr. BARHAM in the absence ofprobable cause.
20. PlaintiffMARY CANALES is a Registered Nurse, and a resident ofthe state ofVermont. On Septeniber 27, 2002, Dr. CANALES was in Washington, D.C. to attend a nursing
conference. Dr. CANALES saw a political assembly in Pershing Park and entered the
7

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 8 of 46

park to associat~ with the demonstrators and to see if there was a speaker to listen to. Dr.

CANALES was peaceably and lawfully standing in the park when, without notice or

warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in,

. closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of

probable cause.

21. Plaintiff WILLIAM DURHAM is a law student at Georgetown University Law Center

and resident ofthe District of Columbia. On September 21, 2002, Mr. DURHAM was

peaceably and lawfully protesting in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning,

police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all

avenues ofexit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence ofprobable cause.

22. PlaintiffNOAH FALK is a law student at the George Washington University Law School

and a resident ofthe District of Columbia. On September 21, 2002, Mr. FALK, in his

capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully

observing political demonstrations in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning,

police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of

exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence ofprobable cause.
23. Plaintiff JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ is a cook at n Radicchio in Arlington, VA, and a

resident of Virginia On September 21,2002, Mr. GARCIA-SPITZ lawfully rode his

bicycle with about sixty other cyclists to convey, by way of example, his support for, and

the effectiveness of non-fossil fuel based modes oftransportation. In the vicinity of

.

~

Pershing Park, Mr. GARCIA-SPITZ was confronted by a police line that had popped up

obstrnctinghis movement, he was ordered offofhis bike and into Pershing Park where,

8

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 9 of 46
without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely, detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause, 24, Plaintiff MARK JACKSON is an independent contractor with the Underground Railroad and Freedom Center, and works with a curator at the American History Museum, He is also an adjunct professor at the George Washington University, and a resident ofthe District of Columbia, On September 27, 2002 Mr, JACKSON walked over to Pershing Park where there was a political assembly, When he tried to move on to work, Mr, JACKSON realized that without notice or warning, police had surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, and closed off all avenues of exit, He was falsely detained and arrested in the absence of probable cause, 25, Plaintiff CASEY LEGLER is a resident of Washington, DC, On Septemb.er 27,2002, Ms, LEGLER lawfully rode her bicycle with about sixty other cyclists to convey, by way of example, her support for, and the effectiveness ofnon-fossil fuel based modes of transportation. In the vicinity of Pershing Park, Ms. LEGLER was confronted by a police line that had popped up obstructing her movement, she was ordered off ofher bike and into Pershing Park where, without notice or warning, police surrounded her with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence ofprobable cause. 26. Plaintiff CHARLCIE LEGLER is a student at George Mason University and waitress at the Tabard lun and a resident of Virginia On September 27, 2002, Ms. LEGLER lawfully rode her bicycle with abgut sixty other cyclists to convey, by way ofexample, her support
9

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 10 of 46
for, and the effectiveness of non-fossil fuel based modes of transportation. In the vicinity ofPershing Park, Ms. LEGLER was confronted by a police line that had popped up obstructing her movement, she was ordered off of her bike and into Pershing Park where, without notice or warning, police surrounded her with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues ofexit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause. 27. PlaintiffMICHAEL LEHACH is a law student at the Georgetown University Law Center and a resident ofthe District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002, Mr. LEHACH, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in the vicinity ofVermont Ave. and K Street when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested Mr. LEHACH in the absence of probable cause. 28. PlaintiffBRlAN McATEER is a high school student, a reporter for the Independent Media Center, and a resident ofMaryland. He was lawfully videotaping political activity near the intersection ofVermont Avenue and K Streets, NW on the morning of September 27, 2002 when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested Mr. McATEER in the absence ofprobable cause. As has happened to other independent media reporters with recurring frequency at demonstrations in Washington, D.C., his video camera and tape were seized by the D.C. MPD and confiscated while in the custody oftheMPD.
10

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 11 of 46
29. Plaintiff SALLY NORTON is a Registered Nurse, an Assistant Professor at the University of Rochester School ofNursing, and a resident ofthe State ofNew York. On September 27, 2002, Dr. NORTON was in Washington, D.C. to attend a nursing conference. Dr. NORTON saw a political assembly in Pershing Park and entered the park to associate with the demonstrators and to see ifthere was a speaker to listen to. Dr. NORTON was peaceably and lawfully standing in the park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues ofexit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause.
30. PlaintiffJOHN PASSACANTANDO is the Executive Director of Greenpeace and is a resident ofthe District of Columbia. Mr. PASSACANTANDO was peaceably and lawfully bicycling to work on September 27, 2002 when he entered Pershing Park to observe the political activity there. Thereafter, the police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues ofexit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence ofprobable cause.
31. Plaintiff JOSEPH PHELAN is a student at Hunter College and a resident ofthe state of New York. On September 27, 2002, Mr. PHELAN was peaceably and lawfully protesting in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues ofexit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause.
32. Plaintiff NICOLE PRICHARD is an administrative assistant at the Area Foundation and a resident of the Districtof Columbia. On September 27, 2002, Ms. PRICHARD was
11

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 12 of 46
riding her bicycle around Washington DC when she found herself amidst the group of bicycling protesters. She was forced by the police department into Pershing Park. She was peaceably and lawfully standing in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed offall avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause. Her bicycle lock wa~ destroyed and her bicycle was confiscated by the MPD. 33. Plaintiff MORGAN RESS is a photographer associated with ABC No Rio, an artists' space in New York City, and a resident of the State ofNew York. On September 27, 2002, he was present in Washington, D.C. to participate in political demonstrations by photographing those events with the intention oflater sharing these political images with others. PlaintiffRESS was peaceably and lawfully standing in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence ofprobable cause: 34. Plaintiff LAURY SALIGMAN is an employee of Conservation International and a resident ofthe District ofColumbia. On the morning of September 27, 2002, she had been riding her bicycle as part ofher routine bicycle race fitness training. She was peaceably and lawfully pausing to rest from her training and observing nearby protesters when, without notice or warning, a police line began forming near her. As she tried to exit the block, the police violently pushed her and knocked her ?ffofher bicycle and then arrested her. 35. 'PlaintiffMACDONALD SCOTT is a Canadian citizen and resident ofille State ofNew
12

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 13 of 46
York, where he is employed as Membership Coordinator for the National Lawyers Guild. On September 27, 2002, Mr. SCOTT was peaceably and lawfully protesting in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him and the. park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed offall avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 36. Plaintiff MlLES SWANSON is a law student at the University ofthe District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, and a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002, Mr. SWANSON, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in the vicinity of Vermont Ave. and K Street when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed offall avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested Mr. SWANSON in the absence of probable cause. 37. PlaintiffJERI WOHLBERG is a graduate student in a family nurse practitioner program in Vermont, and is also a resident ofthat state. On September 27, 2002, Ms. WOHLBERG was in Washington, D.C. to attend a nursing conference. From herhotel, Ms. WOHLBERG saw and heard the political assembly in Pershing Park, and went across the street to the Park to participate. Ms. WOHLBERG was peaceably and lawfully standing in the public park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence ofprobable cause. 38. PlaintiffLESLEY WOOD is a Canadian citizen and resident ofthe State ofNew York, where she is a doctoral candidate at Columbia University. On September 27,2002, Ms.
13

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 14 of 46
~I
WOOD was peaceably and lawfully protestIDg in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed offall avenues ofexit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause. 39. Plaintiff DEVON YATES is a bicycling advocate and a founder of Free Ride, a bicycle recycling program in Pittsburgh. Ms. YATES is a resident ofPennsylvania. On September 27, 2002, Ms. YATES lawfully rode her bicycle with about sixty other cyclists to convey, by way ofexample, her support for, and the effectiveness of non-fossil fuel. based modes oftransportation. In the vicinity ofPershing Park, Ms. YATES was confronted by a police line that had popped up obstructing her movement, she was ordered offofher bike and into Pershing Park where, without notice or warning, police surrounded her with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence ofprobable cause. 40. Plaintiff SAMANTHA YOUNG is a chef at the Tabard Inn and a resident of Virginia. On September 27, 2002, Ms. YOUNG lawfully rode her bicycle with about sixty other cyclists to convey, by way of example, her support for, and the effectiveness ofnon-fossil fuel based modes oftransportation. In the vicinity ofPershing Park, Ms. YOUNG was confronted by a police line that had popped up obstructing her movement, she was ordered offofher bike and into Pershing Park where, without notice or warning, police surrounded her with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and fa!sely detained and arrested her in the absence ofprobable cause. 41. Plaintiff STEPHEN ZIMMERMAN is a law student at the George Washington
14

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 15 of 46
University Law School and is a resident ofthe District ofColumbia. On September 27, 2002, Mr. ZIMMERMAN, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed offall avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 42. Defendant CHARLES H. RAMSEY is Chiefof the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. He is a policy maker for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. ChiefRAMSEY was physically present at the site ofthe mass arrests and political roundups and, on information and belief, planned in advance and gave the orders at the scene for officers to engage in the conduct challenged herein. Mr. RAMSEY is sued in both his official and individual capacity. 43. Defendant ANTHONY WIIHAMS is the Mayor ofthe District ofColumbia and a policy maker for the District. Mr. WILLIAMS has approved and ratified the unconstitutional conduct challenged herein. He is sued in both his official and individual capacity. 44. Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA is a municipal corporation and constitutes the local government of Washington, D.C. 45. Defendant D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT has law enforcement authority within the District of Columbia and engaged in the conduct challenged herein. ·46. Defendant GALE A. NORTON is head oftheDepartment ofthe Interior, the federal agency encompassing the U.S. Park Police and the National Park Service, which maintains jurisdiction over certain parks and land located within the District of Columbia
15

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02,,/~0""7,./03 Page 16 of 46 x._~>-' including Pershing Park, and is alleged to have engaged in joint action with the other defendants in the acts challenged herein.
47. Defendant JOHN ASHCROFT is U.S. Attorney General and head ofthe Department of Justice, the federal agency encompassing the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, which is alleged to have engaged injoint action with the other defendants in the acts challenged herein, including but not limited to, for the purpose of collecting and disseminating intelligence information related to the plaintiffs' and demonstrators' political actions and associations.
48. Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA encompasses all federal agencies that had any role in the violations alleged herein.
49. Defendant UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES are individuals who, and agencies which, engaged injoint action with the named defendants to deprive plaintiffs oftheir clearly established constitntional rights. The as yet unidentified defendants engaged in the mass arrests and political roundups notwithstanding the absence ofprobable cause or lawful justification. The officers and their responsible supervisory chain ofcommand are sued in their individual and official capacities.
STANDARDS REFLECTED IN THE MPD MASS DEMONSTRATION HANDBOOK 50. As a matter ofpolicy, practice and custC)m, the MPD injoint action with federal and other
agencies, intentionally disrupts and disperses certain targeted mass political assembly and demonstrations in the absence ofcause or justification. 51. As a matter ofpractice, custom, and informal policy the MPD routinely violates its own
16

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 17 of 46

established standards and engages in constitutionally i,mpermissible mass arrests and political ronnd-ups of targeted political demonstrators and activists engaged in mass

assembly and political activity and others associating with them.

52. The MPD has issued the "Metropolitan Police Department Handbook for the

Management of Mass Demonstrations" (hereinafter the "Mass Demonstration

Handbook"). According to the MPD, the Mass Demonstration Handbook is the standard

operational guide for dealing with mass demonstrations, and the handbook establishes

what the MPD claims to be proper standards, procedures and MPD obligations in that

context.

53. According to the MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook, where police intend to disperse a

crowd engaging in a political demonstration, the field commander shall instruct unit

commanders "to issue warnings to the crowd to disperse."

54. The MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook requires as follows:

[A] [1] The issuance of warnings shall be of such amplification and repetition as to be

heard by the entire assemblage.

[2] Issuances shall be made by the unit commander from stationary vantage points

which are observable to the crowd, or to a large number ofparticipants.

[3] Additional warnings, where necessary, shall be given from police vehicles,

equipped with public address systems, moving aronnd the crowd.

[4] The warning shall consist of an annonncement citing the offenses or violations

which are being committed by participants and a request or order, whichever is

applicable, that the crowd disperse. Whenever possible, this warning Shall be

written out prior to annonncement, to ensure clarity and accuracy, and

consistency, ifthe warning is repeated.

-,

[5] The entire warning process shall be documented by means of an audio-visual

recording, if available.

[B] As a first means of dispersing a crowd nnder static conditions, the unit

commander shall attempt to verbally persuade the crowd to disperse of its own

accord by annonnced available exit routes.

[C][I] If, after a reasonable time following the initial warning, the crowd refuses to

17

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 18 of 46
disperse, the unit commander shall issue a final warning ordering the participants to disperse or be subject to arrest. [2] , If, after a reasonable amount oftime following the final warning, the crowd continues in its refusal to disperse, the unit commander shall direct that violators be arrested. 55. None ofthe plaintiffs were afforded benefit or protection ofthe standards described above in the MPD-issued Mass Demonstration Handbook. The MPD violated these standards with respect to plaintiffs and hundreds of others.
THE DEFENDANTS' PLAN FOR POLITICAL ROUNDUPS AND "PREEMPTIVE" ARRESTS 56. The MPD and other defendants had advance knowledge that there was planned a weekend ofpolitical demonstration activity beginning on Friday, September 27, 2002. 57. Federal and local law enforcement agencies discussed and planned in advance a strategy of "preemptive" action against protesters, as was reported in the Saturday, September 21, 2002 Washington Post. 58. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer participated in these discnssions with D.C. and federal law enforcement officials. Treating the protesters as presumptively criminal, and indicating a willingness to act absent probable canse, Gainer explained, "I don't know why we have to wait until after they've inflicted damage." 59. The local and federal plan was, in fact, implemented on September 27,2002. As evidenced by its implementation, the plan consisted ofpolitical round-ups at multiple locations and mass arrests of hundreds ofpeaceful protesters and any others in their vicinity with no regard as to whether such persons were, in fact, breaking any law. . 60. On September 27, 2002 District officials made it a crime to be a protester in Washington, D.C., and a crime for others to come near to hear the protesters' message or to join in.
18

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 19 of 46 ~, I : ,,-~ FACTS RELATED TO THE ROUND-UPS NEAR FRANKLIN SQUARE PARK
61. On the morning ofSeptember 27, 2002 a political assembly of approximately 200 - 300 persons gathered in the area ofFranklin Square Park.
62. By approximately 6 - 7 a.m. there was a substantial police presence in the area because of the anticipated assemblage.
63. Plaintiff McATEER, who was age seventeen at the time, came to the area as an independent journalist. McATEER was intending to videotape the anticipated political events for publication through the Independent Media Center or other press outlets.
64. McATEER had not even reached Franklin Park when he was detained by an MPD officer, who demanded to know "Are you going to the protest?" The officer searched McATEER's backpack before ultimately releasing him. There was no cause for searching McATEER's belongings, and he expressly stated that he did not consent to the search of his belongings.
65. Plaintiff SALIGMAN is a bicycle racer. She had been riding her bicycle as part of her routine racing and fitness training. At the end ofher training ride when she saw some demonstrators who were peaceably walking onto the block together, she paused her bike
for th,e purpose of observing their political activities. Without notice or warning, a police
line popped up. Observing this line forming, Ms. SALIGMAN decided to move on so she could shower and go to work. Without any warning, without even an order to "move back," a police officer violently pushed her and knocked her off of her bicycle. The police grabbed herby the scruffof her neck and said "we're taking you in," and arrested her. 66. Plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH and SWANSON went to the Franklin Park area in their
19

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 20 of 46

•

capacities as National Lawyers Guild Legal Observers. Such legal observers are routinely

at the site of political assemblages and demonstrations for the purpose of observing

events, including police misconduct.

67. Plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH and SWANSON were clearly identified as Legal

Observers and each wore a high-visibili~ green flourescent baseball cap and a green

identification tag that identified each as a Legal Observer.

68. On this morning, a group ofprotesters moved from Franklin Park along K Street and one

block north alQng Vermont Avenue.

, 69. The MPD erected a police line at the intersection of Vermont and L "Streets, blocking

northbound passage.

70. The MPD then erected a police line at the intersection of Vermont and K Streets,

blocking southbound passage.

71. Movement eastbound and westbound was also blocked by police and/or buildings.

72. Police used force and/or threat offorce to impede movement outside of this area.

73. The area within the police lines became a detention zone, within which scores of

demonstrators, observers, and bystanders were thus seized and arrested within the

meaning of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, without probable

cause.

74. Plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH, MCATEER and SWANSON were boxed-in by the

police lines and had no avenue to exit the scene.

75. The police issued no directives other than to "move back" - a directive that was often

. issued simultaneously with a blow from a baton.

20

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 21 of 46
76. Riot police used their batons offensively and aggressively, yelling at protesters to "move back." Police crammed the detainees into a smaller and smaller area, closing their perimeter with force and violence. This created an atmosphere of increasing fear, provocation and tension.
77. At one point, a storefront window broke and shattered when the police, wielding their batons offensively, pushed a trapped and tightly compressed group ofarrestees into the window. The police had ignored the arrestees' pleas to stop the compression.
78. At no time did plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH, McATEER or SWANSON fail to obey a police order.
79. After surrounding plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH, McATEER and SWANSON with police lines, the police then without probable cause or lawful justification, arrested BARHAM, LEHACH, McATEER and SWANSON along with hundreds ofothers, mostly political activists and demonstrators.
80. An MPD officer approached Plaintiff BARHAM, who was wearing legal observer identification. The officer asked ifBARHAM was a law student and then threatened BARHAM that his arrest should prevent him from being admitted to the bar.
81. At no point did any MPD officer do any of the following, as is required by the MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook: 1. issue a warning for the political demonstration or for others in proximity to the political assemblage to disperse; 2. issue any warnings to disperse through the use ofamplification and with such repetition for the entire assemblage to hear; 3. issue any warning to disperse from stationary vantage points observable to the
21

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 22 of 46
,
crowd or to a large number ofparticipants; 4. issue additional warnings given from police vehicles, equipped with public
address systems, moving about the crowd. 5. make an announcement citing the offenses or violations which were allegedly
being committed and issue a request or order that individuals disperse. 82. The MPD prevented dispersal through the actual and threatened use offorce, and through
unyielding police lines. 83. At no time was there probable cause to arrest plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH,
McATEER, SALIGMAN or SWANSON. 84. This unconstitutional mass arrest and round-up was directed and approved by D.C. and
l\.!PD policy,makers. MPD policy makers and high-ranking officials present during the mass arrest included Chiefof Police Charles Ramsey, Sgt. Joseph Gentile, and Lt. Jeffrey Herold, among others.
FACTS RELATING TO THE ROUND-UPS OF PERSONS LAWFULLY RIDING BICYCLES IN SUPPORT OF ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUEL USAGE
85. On September 27, 2002 approximately sixty to seventy persons met at Uuion Station for the purpose ofengaging in a lawful bicycle ride and to demonstrate, by way ofexample, their support for alternatives to oil and gasoline consumption and the pollution caused by such fuels.
86. By law and regulation, bicycles are allowed to traverse the roadways in the District of Columbia.
87. At approximately 8:30 a.m. on September 27, 2002 plaintiffs JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, and SAMANTHA YOUNG met at Duion
22

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 23 of 46
Station. Ms. DEVON YATES also assembled with others at Union ~tation. 88. It was the intention of plaintiffs GARCIA-SPITZ, LEGLER, LEGLER and YOUNG to
embark upon this lawful bicycle ride from Union Station over to the Freedom Plaza area, where they understood a political demonstration was to take place, and from there to go their separate ways, to work or school or elsewhere. PlaintiffYATES intended to embark on the bike ride and later that day participate in political demonstration activity, where she intended to dress as an oil slick to further convey her support for non-fossil fuel energy and the risks associated with reliance upon oil. 89. The police were aware ofthis well publicized bike ride, and they maintained a substantial presence. in the vicinity of Union Station. 90. At approximately 8:30a.m., the bicyclists began their ride. None ofthe law enforcement officers directed the bike riders to not ride their bikes, and the police did not obstruct the start ofthis lawful and political endeavor. 91. As soon as the bike ride started, however, mobile police lines popped up - - consisting of officers on bicycles and on motorcycles and in motor vehicles - - surrounding these plaintiffs and the bicyclists on all sides. 92. By virtue oftheir police lines, the police controlled the movement of the bicyclists. When police wanted to stop the bicyclists, the front line ofofficers would wave and direct that thdse-following behind them should stop. Those who sought to leave the bike ride by
exiting through the side mobile police lines would be prevented from doing so. In this
regard, the bicyclists were already seized by the police as they were riding in a mobile detention zone. However, the presence ofthe mobile police lirieswas interpreted by some
23

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 24 of 46
as an escort and it did not interfere with plaintiffs GARCIA-SPITZ, LEGLER, LEGLER, YATES and YOUNG's original and lawful intention to traverse the roadways peaceably and lawfully upon their bikes. 93. The bicyclists obeyed all traffic laws during this bike ride, including obeying all directives from the police. 94. There was no attempt by the police to obstruct the bike ride as it proceeded, nor did the police suggest that there was even any problem. Some of the cyclists even misinterpreted the police escort as a measure of support or success. 95. As the bike ride entered its final leg near the Freedom Plaza and Pershing Park area the cyclists were confronted by a stationary police line in their way. 96. The police forced the bicyclists into Pershing Park which is across from Freedom Plaza and which held about 300 demonstrators at that time. The police ordered them off oftheir bicycles. The cyclists complied, as this was about where they intended to terminate their ride, and many initially thought there was nothing wrong. 97. However, a few minutes later when plaintiffs CASEY LEGLER and her partner SAMANTHA YOUNG attempted to leave Pershing Park because they had to go to work later that day, they were told by the police that "no one is allowed to leave the park." 98. The police had surrounded these plaintiffs and the park, using police lines that had popped up on all sides, and refused to let anyone leave the parle 99. One officer told CASEY LEGLER and YOUNG that they were not allowed to leave because their bikes were displaying "propaganda.n The officer told them that they could leave ifthey removed the propaganda, which consisted in part of a sign displaying a
24

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 25 of 46
women's symbol. They complied with the officer's request removing their First Amendment protected materials. The officer took their signs and destroyed them, and then continued to refuse to let them leave. 100. CASEY LEGLER and YOUNG approached an MPD Lieutenant and asked why they were not being allowed to leave and if they were being arrested. 101. The Lieutenant advised that "At this point in time Ma'am, we are just following orders." 102. Ms. YATES was sitting on the grass in the park lawfully sewing her oil slick costume when she realized that she, too, was surrounded on all sides by the police. 103. The defendants refused to allow plaintiffs GARCIA-SPITZ, LEGLER, LEGLER, YATES and YOUNG to disperse or leave the park and subsequently falsely arrested each in the manner described below. FACTS RELATING TO THE ROUND-UPS OF PERSONS IN PERSIDNG PARK 104. Demonstrators began gathering in parkland near the intersection of 14th Street and
, Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, between approximately 8:00 - 9:00 am. on September 27, 2002. 105. Demonstrators had planned to engage to protest in Freedom Plaza, which is adjacent to Pershing Park. However, police officers directed demonstrators into Pershing Park and the political assemblage gathered there. 106. Pershing Park is a public forum under the jurisdiction ofthe United States Department of the mterior, National Park Service. 107. Plaintiffs MARY CANALES and SALLY NORTON are each registered nurses who were in Washington, D.C. for the purpose ofattending a nursing conference, "Advancing
25

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 26 of 46
Nursing Practice Excellence: State of the science," which was being held at the Marriott
Hotel that is near Pershing Park. 108. Drs. CANALES and NORTON decided to leave the Marriott Hotel to get breakfast,
which they did at approximately 8:30 a.m. They were aware, from news reports, that there were demonstrations anticipated in Washington, D.C. that day, and they saw that demonstrators were gathered at Pershing Park. After picking up coffee, they entered the park in order to listen to any political speakers that might be giving a speech there. 109. There was an evident police presence, but no indication to Doctors CANALES or NORTON that there was a problem. They passed by the police and entered without event. 110. At about the same time, plaintiff JERIWOHLBERG, a graduate student in nursing who was presenting research at the conference at the Marriott, ·decided that she wanted to participate in the demonstration in Pershing Park. She knew ofthe demonstration from the media coverage and wished to support its political message. She could hear and see the demonstration from the Marriott. She, too, entered the park passing by the police who were not indicating any imminent police round-up or similar problem. Ms. WOHLBERG met up with plaintiffs CANALES and NORTON in the park. Ill. Plaintiffs WOHLBERG, CANALES and NORTON all observed what was occurring in Pershing park at that time, just before the mass arrest and political round-up: dancing, singing and assembly. Some people were rhythmically beating drums. ManYllrotesters held signs protesting corporate globalization and greed. Other signs advocated for peace, against war in Iraq, and bore messages such as "bread not bombs." Clearly it was a gathering ofindividuals engaging in political speech, assembly and camaraderie.
26

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 27 of 46
112. At a time between 9:00 am.. and 9:30 a.m., the bicyclists were forced into the Park, and shortly thereafter police lines were erected withoutany notice or warning. Many ofthose surrounded had no inunediate awareness that they had been trapped and seized.
113. A session of the nursing conference was set to begin at 9:45 a.m. CANALES, NORTON and WOHLBERG found, however, that they had been surrounded by these police lines that had silently popped up on all sides. They found unyielding police lines in every direction, with many officers in intimidating, black, full riot gear. They attempted to leave and asked permission to leave of no less than five separate officers. They explained they had to attend the conference, and displayed their conference tote bags.
114. This was similar to the experiences that other plaintiffs who happened also to be in the . park were having.
115. PlaintiffWILLlAM DURHAM went to Pershing Park as a protester. He arrived at the park, and observed a drum circle there with people cheering and chanting. Soon thereafter, he and. others realized that police lines had popped up on all sides. The police refused to allow DURHAM to leave.
116. PlaintiffNOAH FALK is a law student at the George Washington University School of Law. He was in Pershing Park in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, and was clearly identifiable as such based on the flourescent green Legal Observer cap and green badge he was displaying. FALK was lawfully standing in the park when he found himself surrounded by police lines.
117. Plaintiff MARK JACKSON is an independent contractor with the Underground Railroad and Freedom Center, and works with a curator at the American History Museum. He was
27

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 28 of 46
not protesting, but had walked over to the park and planned to head to work when he found himself surrounded by police lines that had quietly popped up. He asked to be allowed past the police line, but the police refused him passage, explaining "we can't let you out." 118. Plaintiff JOHN PASSACANTANDO had been riding his bicycle to. work that morning to avoid what had been predicted to be difficult traffic. He stopped near Pershing Park to observe the protest. Thereafter he, too, found himself surrounded by police lines on all sides with police refusing to let him leave. PASSACANTANDO asked no less than a dozen officers at different locations to be allowed to leave and go on his way, but he was told repeatedly that he was not allowed to leave. A number of the officers advised that they were acting under "orders." 119. PlaintiffJOSEPH PHELAN is a student at Hunter College in New York, and was present in Pershing Park to participate in the protests. When he sought to leave the park, MPD officers told him he could not leave. He asked one officer ~Am I being detained" and was told "no." When he then said, "So we can leave," the officer stated "Ifyou try to leave, you'll be arrested." 120. PlaintiffNlCOLE PRICHARD was riding her bicycle around the City when she found herself amidst the group ofprotesters on bicycles. She was almost immediately thereafter forced into Pershing Park, where she found herself surrounded by police lines on all sides and, when she sought to leave, was told by an MPD officer "no one goes in and no one goes out unless{)n that [mass arrest] bus." 121. Plaintiff MORGAN RESS is an artist who works with ABC No Rio, an artist space on
28

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 29 of 46
,
the lower east side of Manhattan, NY. RESS Was in Pershing Park as a demonstrator and
as a photographer and artist. He heard the. sound ofprotest drums in the park, entered the park, and soon found that the police had formed lines around the park. He asked multiple officers ifhe could please leave, and each refused to let him go. Some officers were silent, others told him to go to another police line. When he did so he would either be . directed to go to yet another police line or would be met with silence. One officer explained, "Our orders are no one leaves the park." 122. Plaintiff MACDONALD SCOTT is employed as the Membership Coordinator for the
National Lawyers Guild in New York City. He was peacefully protesting in the park
when he found himself surrounded on all sides by police lines. He requested of at least
five police officers that they allow him to leave the park, and each time was refused.
123. Plaintiff LESLEY WOOD is a doctoral candidate at Columbia University. She was peacefully protesting in Pershing Park when without notice or warning the police formed lines around the park. She requested ofat least five police officers that they allow her to leave the park, and each time was refused.
124. Plaintiff STEPHEN ZIMMERMAN is a law student at GC<?rge Washington University Law School and was a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer present in Pershing Park when police surrounded the park. He tried to leave, but was not allowed.
125. At no time did any of plaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM, FALK, GARCIA-SPITZ, JACKSON, LEGLER, LEGLER, NORTON, PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD, RESS, SCOTT, WOHLBERG, WOOD, YATES, YOUNG, or ZIMMERMAN fail to obey a police order.
29

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 30 of 46
126. The police actions in the vicinity of PersHing Piitk were executed by MPD police, u.s.
Park Police under the jurisdiction ofthe Department of the Interior, and other as-yetunidentified law enforcement agencies and officers. 127. After surrounding plaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM, FALI<, GARCIA-SPITZ, JACKSON, LEGLER, LEGLER, NORTON, PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD, RESS, SCOTT, WOHLBERG, WOOD, YATES, YOUNG and ZIMMERMAN with police lines, the police then without probable cause or lawful justification, arrested each ofthem along with hundreds of others, mostly political activists and demonstrators. 128. At no point did any MPD officer do any ofthe following, as is required by the MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook: 1. issue a warning for the political demonstration or for others in proximity to the
political assemblage to disperse; 2. ,issue any warnings to disperse through the use of amplification and with such
repetition for the entire assemblage to hear; 3. issue any warning to disperse from stationary vantage points observable to the
crowd or to a large number ofparticipants; 4. issue additional wamings given from police vehicles, equipped with pUblic
address systems, moving about the crowd. 5. make an announcement citing the offenses or violations which were allegedly
being committed and issue a request or order that individuals disperse. 129. The MPD and other police prevented dispersal through the actual and threatened use of
force, and through unyielding police lines. 130. At no time was there probable cause to arrest any of plaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM,
30

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 31 of 46
FALK, GARCIA-SPITZ, JACKSON, LEGLER, LEGLER, NORTON, PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD, RESS, SCOTT, WOHLBERG, WOOD, YATES, YOUNG or ZIMMERMAN. 131. The police used pop up police lines to unlawfully seize and detain hundreds of political activists and those who associated with them or wer~ within physical proximity of their political assemblage. The police then executed a new phase of the police plan. 132. . Riot police used their batons offensively and aggressively, yelling at protesters to "move in, move in!" and telling them "You cannot leave, move, move!" Police crannned the detainees into a smaller and smaller area, closing their perimeter with force and violence. This created an atmosphere of increasing fear, provocation and tension. 133. It appeared to some that the police were trying to provoke a violent reaction from those they were abusing. 134. Protesters responded by yelling at each other "Do what they say!" and "Cover your head!" 135. Police continued pushing protesters with violence and force. At points the perimeter was collapsing inward with such a fierce pace that different officers were ordering people to move in different directions. . 136. All of the plaintiffs obeyed the police's unlawful orders. 137. The arrestees were tightly compacted in the Southwest comer of the Park. 138. Small groups ofMPD officers began a process of crossing the police line, grabbing an individual, dragging that individual to the outside ofthe police line, violently throwing him or her face down to the ground, using three of four officers to exert force upon the non-resisting arrestee, handcuffing him or her, and placing him or her on a bus.
31

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 32 of 46
,
139. This happened to the first four or five people hi a row, until the most violent officers were
restrained by other officers and told to calm down. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
(proposed class to encompass those falsely arrested in Pershing Park) 140. The proposed class is: All persons who were arrested on September 27, 2002 as part of
the mass arrests ofpersons that took place in Pershing Park. 141. The proposed class and their claims, satisfY the requirements ofRules 23(a) and (b)(3). 142. The class of persons subject to the mass arrest in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002,
which is composed of more than 400 persons, is too numerous for joinder. 143. These individuals' claims that their First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and
their common law rights against false arrest and false imprisonment were violated raise
\
common questions oflaw and fact. 144. By arresting virtually all of the participants in, and onlookers at, a peaceful political
assemblage without probable cause or lawful justification, defendants acted ort grounds generally applicable to the class. 145. According to Peter Lavalee, .the D.C. Corporation Counsel's communication director as quoted in the Washington City Paper, "We no-papered everything in Pershing Park. We did not feel in the cases that came from Pershing Park - that the witness statements and the evidence that we had [presented] probable cause that a crime was committed and/or that a specific individual committed a crime."I

1 Jason Cherkis, "Boss Hogtie: Police Chief Charles Ramsey had a plan for the more than

400 people in Pershing Park last September: Arrest them all, detain them for hours, and then tie

them wrist to ankle for 12 hours. He says he'll do it again," The Washington City Paper, January

17-23,2003 at 20,23.

.

,

32

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 33 of 46
146. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims ofthis class, as they were lawfully present in Pershing Park when they were arrested without basis on April 15 as part of the same police sweep.
147. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the members of this class.
FACTS COMMON TO THE PROCESSING OF ALL PLAINTIFFS 148.· The plastic handcuffs placed on many individuals were excessively tight. All plaintiffs
experienced pain, and many experienced swelling and numbness from the handcuffs. 149. Arrested individuals were held on busses for many hours, with their hands handcuffed
behind their backs. 150. Sequential busloads of arrested individuals were eventually taken offthe bus and brought
into the gymnasium ofthe Institute for Police Science at Blue Plains. They were then shackled and hog-tied with their right wrists handcuffed to their left ankles. Some were left in this position for many hours. 151. Inside the gymnasium, law enforcement officials photographed the individuals arrested. Photographs were taken of some arrestees that were in addition to their "mug shots." Some demonstrators with political statements on their clothing were singled out and photographed with greater scrutiny. 152. The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose agents sometimes displayed FBI identification, participated in this mass collection of data. This data has been recorded and collected in databases, record-keeping or other information
33

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 34 of 46
systems and, on information and belief, has also been disseminated or made available to unknown agencies and entities. 153. The MPD maintains a policy, practice or custom oftreating persons arrested in connection with mass political arrests differently than others who have been arrested for similar minor offenses. 154. The MPD maintains a policy, practice and custom of preventive detention for targeted persons or groups engaged in political activity. By way of example, documents secured through subpoena in International Action Center, et al. v. U.S.A., et al. include production notfs for an MPD training video related to mass demonstrations, in which the section on "Police Tactics and Issues". includes "Tactics - Locking up the troublemakers on the first night." 155. The MPD maintains a policy, practice and custom of holding targeted political arrestees . who have been (falsely) charged only with minor offenses for extended periods of time, in order to take them offofthe streets and prevent them from engaging in further political dissent on subsequent days of demonstration, and to induce fatigue through sleep deprivation. By way of example, documents secured through subpoena in International . Action Center. et al. v. United States of America, et al. include production notes for an MPD training video related to mass demonstrations, in which the section on "Police Tactics and Issues" includes "Tactics - Sleep deprivation tactics." 156. The MPD ordinarily allows qualified persons to "post and trial" - - which means that the arrestee can post collateral in order to secure prompt release and can retnm for a fUtnre trial date on which the arrestee may challenge the legality ofher arrest.
34

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 35 of 46
157. However, similarly situated persons as part of a mass political arrests or roundups are refused this option, to "post and trial." Instead, it is the policy, practice and/or custom of the MPD that targeted political arrestees are offered only the option to "post and forfeit" collateral. Police advise targeted political arrestees that, should they opt to challenge the legality of their arrest, they will not be released for an extended period ofdays. The period of threatened additional confinement and jail ranges arbitrarily from between two days to a week or more.
158. Plaintiffs were confined by defendants into the middle ofthe night or until the following day, for approximate periods oftime ranging from no less than 14 hours to over 30 hours. Unconstitutional Policies of the MPD
159. The MPD, and those federal agencies which act jointly with the MPD and its "Civil Distnrbance Units," maintain the policy, practice and/or custom of abusing their state authority to distnrb and disrupt targeted civil political assembly and mass demonstrations.
160. The CDUs also accomplish their disruption strategy through their established practice and policy ofpreventive detention ofpolitical activists, in which the CDUs will trap, seize and arrest groups ofprotesters by closing off all avenues ofexit with riot gear clad police.
·161. The MPD and its CDUs maintain the policy, practice and/or custom ofdeploying police . lines where circumstances do not justifY such deployment and for the purpose of disrupting First Amendment protected assembly, speech and petition activities.
162. These riot squads use force and the threat offorce to enforce this preventive detention, in which they arrest and hold detainees for a significant period oftime. Absent intervening circumstances, the detainees will be placed on mass arrest busses and held for significant
35

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 36 of 46
periods oftime, typically overnight. 163. Preventive detention signifies that individuals are being arrested not for engaging in
illegal activity but for engaging in political activity, and constitutes a severe violation of First and Fourth Amendment rights when applied against political demonstrators. 164. The use of disruption and disturbance tactics by the MPD is an established custom, policy and practice ofthe MPD, as evidenced by the repeated use, the approval of, and the acquiescence in the use of such tactics by policy making officials ofthe District of Columbia 165. DC policy maker Mayor Anthony Williams has stated his approval of the MPD's tactics, referring to arrest tactics ofthe MPD, as executed on April 15, 2000 (and repeated on Inauguration Day 2001 and on September 27,2002) as "preventative" and "proactive." Preventive detention and false arrest, whether referred to as "preventative arrest" or "proactive arrest," when applied to a targeted group of persons seeking to exercise constitutionally protected rights, in the absence of probable cause, is unconstitutional. 166. MPD policy makers approve ofthese tactics, which they have used repeatedly, and which are the subject ofpending litigation related to their use on Inauguration Day (International Action Center et al. v. United States et al., 0 l-CV-72) and on April 15,
2000 (Fifty Years Is Enough et al. v. District ofColumbia et aI., 01-CV-811). In the alternative, MPD policy makers have acquiesced to these unconstitutional tactics.
167. On September 27,2002, the CDUs and other MPD officers were deployed for these unconstitutional purposes.
168. On September 27, 2002, the Department ofthe Interior deployed u.S. Park Police to act
36

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 37 of 46
jointly with the MPD in carrying out this unconstitutional disruption strategy. Additional other individual officers and outside agencies which have yet to be identified also engaged in the same joint action. 169. The MPD maintains the policy, practice and/or custom ofprocessing and treating disparately those persons arrested for minor offenses in connection with political mass arrests or round-ups. The disparate processing and treatment includes confinement for extended period of time including often overnight for alleged minor offenses, and the failure to offer political massarrestees the post and trial option. 170. The above-referenced policies and customs, and also the failure to properly train its officers, constitute deliberate indifference on the part ofpolicymakers ofthe District of Columbia to the constitutional rights ofprotesters in the Nation's Capital, as well as all those who would associate with such protesters or report on them as media' 17l. The actions of the above-referenced defendants violated the following clearly established and well settled federal constitutional rights: l. Freedom from the unreasonable seizure of one's person; 2. Freedom from govermnent disruption of, interference with, or retaliation for,
engagement in free speech, assembly, association, petition and free press activities. 172. The challenged actions and omissions constitute deliberate indifference on the part ofthe District of Columbia, the federal defendants and other defendants to the constitutional rights ofprotesters in the Nation's Capital. 173. As a direct and proximate result ofthe acts or omissions ofthe defendants identified in this complaint and the other unidentified agents and agencies acting jointly, each ofthe
37

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 38 of 46
plaintiffs has suffered monetary and non-monetary, harm including deprivation of constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. . Constitution, loss ofliberty, as well as physical harm, emotional pain and suffering.
Ongoing Injury to Plaintiffs 174. Plaintiffs all suffer continued adverse and deterrent effects from the above-referenced
conduct. 175. Defendants' illegal conduct subjects protesters and observers and all those who associate
with protesters to unconstitutional obstacles to the exercise of their rights. There is an intended, ongoing and continued deterrent effect caused by defendant's conduct, in that protesters and others must face the reasonable fear that merely by assembling and exercising their right to free speech (or to listen to speech), they will risk being subject to the unlawful tactics ofthe MPD and federal law enforcement, the risk of false imprisomnent and false arrest and preventive detention, as well as the exposure to force .and the threatened use of force by officers working with the mobile police lines. 176. Plaintiffs intend to, in the future, engage in or associate with First Amendment protected activities in Washington, D.C. and seek injunctive relief to prevent future unconstitutional disruption.
CLAIMS COUNT I False Arrests at Vermont Avenue (First Amendment; Fourth Amendment; False Imprisonment; Fourteenth Amendment) 177. Paragraphs 1 - 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein.
38

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 39 of 46
.
178. Defendants' actions in deploying law enforcement units to disrupt First Amendment protected activity and subjecting plaintiffs BARHAM, LEHACH, McATEER, SALIGMAN AND SWANSON to false imprisonment and arrest violated the Fourth Amendment rights ofthose individuals seized, constituted false imprisonment and false arrest under District of Columbia law, and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of each ofthe aforementioned plaintiffs.
CO.UNTll False Arrests at Pershing Park (First Amendment; Fourth Amendment; False Imprisonment; Fourteenth Amendment) (Individual and class claims) 179. Paragraphs 1 - 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 180. Defendants' actions in deploying law enforcement units to disrupt First Amendment protected activity and subjecting plaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM, FALK, JACKSON, GARCIA-SPITZ, CASEY LEGLER CHARLClE LEGLER, NORTON, PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD, RESS, SCOTT, WOHLBERG, WOOD, YATES, YOUNG and ZIMMERMAN and those SlMlLARLY SITUATED IN THE PROPOSED CLASS to false imprisonment and arrest violated the Fourth Amendment rights ofthose individuals seized, constituted false imprisonment and false arrest under District of Columbia law, and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of each of the aforementioned pl!!intiffs and class members.
COUNTm (Equal Protection Clause; Due Process Clause; First Amendment; Fourth Amendment) 181. Paragraphs 1 - 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein.
39

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02:/0\7/03 Page 40 of 46
"'-..F"'/
182. Defendants' actions in processing and treating differently those adult persons, including all adult plaintiffs, who are arrested for minor offenses in connection with mass political arrests violate the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of those so deprived. COUNT IV . (conversion; trespass to chattel)
183. Paragraphs I - 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 184. Upon arresting plaintiff McATEER, defendant District of Columbia seized plaintiff's
video camera and related items and never returned the video camera and re}ated items and converted them to its own use. 185. Upon arresting plaintiff SCOTT, defendant District of Columbia destroyed plaintiff's backpack by cutting through the arm straps, thereby converting it to its own use. 186. Plaintiffs CHARLClE LEGLER and GARCIA-SPITZ had lawfully locked their bicycles outside of Pershing Park prior to entering and their subsequent arrest. Defendant District of Columbia destroyed their bicycle locks and damaged their bicycles in the subsequent seizure oftheir bicycles, converting the bicycle locks to its own use and committing a trespass to the bicycles.
Count V (negligence and negligent supervision) 187. Paragraphs I - 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 188. The as~yet-unidentified individual officers and supervisors involved in these uulawful arrests had the duty to exercise reasonable care in the conduct towards plaintiffs. 189. The individual supervisors, including Chief Ramsey and his downward chain-of-
40

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 41 of 46
command had the duty to exercise appropriate col:hmand authority in their supervision of their subordinates. 190.. Individual officers and supervisors were both negligent in the exercise ofthese duties of care owed to plaintiffs. 191. As a direct and proximate cause ofthese defendants' negligence, plaintiffs suffered the hanns complained of herein.
Count VI (deliberate indifference to constitntional rights by supervisors, actionable under 42 U.S.C.
§1983) 192. Paragraphs 1 - 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 193. The individual supervisors, including Chief Ramsey and his downward chain-of-
command had the duty to exercise appropriate command authority in their supervision of their subordinates. They failed to exercise appropriate command authority relating to the officers who engaged in the unconstitutional deprivations complained ofherein. 194. The individual supervisors, including ChiefRamsey and his downward chain-ofcommand had the duty to intervene to prevent or halt unlawful and/or unconstitutional police conduct related to the Inaugural Parade. They failed to intervene to prevent the unlawful and unconstitutional deprivations complained of herein. 195. Additionally,.and in the alternative, the individual supervisors, including Chief Ramsey and his downward chain-of-command directed, encouraged and/or participated in the unlawful and unconstitutional conduct complained ofherein. 196. These actions and omissions constituted gross negligence and deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights ofthe plaintiffs.
41

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 42 of 46
'!prJ
"-
197. As a direct and proximate result of the said acts or omissions of the individual supervisors, the plaintiffs have suffered monetary and non-monetary harm including the deprivation ofconstitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, physical and emotional pain and suffering, as well as injuries described elsewhere in the complaint. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
198. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:
A. Entry of a declaratory judgment that the disruption and preventive arrest tactics ofthe MPD and its Civil Disturbance Units and lawenfurcement authorities constitute violations ofthe First and Fourth Amendments;
B. Entry of a permanent injunction to enjoin and prohibit defendants from executing the unlawful disruption and preventive arrest tactics as are employed by the MPD and its Civil Disturbance Units and law enforcement authorities in conjunction with federal law enforcement including but not limited to the unconstitutional use of pop-up police lines and the unconstitutional boxing-in tactic;
C. Entry of a permanent injunction mandating that the MPD offer the "post and trial" option to those persons arrested for minor offenses in connection
42

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 43 of 46
with mass political arrests as are offered to non-political arrestees, and ordering the MPD to provide in writing to all mass protest arrestees a clear and accurate statement oftheir rights to release, and ordering the MPD to make periodic reports to plaintiffs and the Court documenting that this injunction is being abided by;
D. Entry ofa permanent injunction barring the MPD from subjecting to a more harsh and/or longer period of processing and confinement to those persons arrested for minor offenses in conjunction with mass political arrests, and ordering the MPD to maintain written documentation as to the period of confinement before release ofall mass protest arrestees, as compared to all arrestees;
E. Entry of a permanent injunction barring the MPD from threatening or actually jailing for longer periods those persons arrested in connection
\
with mass political arrests who wish to challenge the legality oftheir arrest by seeking a trial date (as distinguished from those who choose to forfeit collateral);
F. Entry of an order that all arrest records, including all photographs, "
fingerprints and other identification or descriptive information regarding plaintiffs be sealed; that disclosure be made in writingto plaintiffs and the
43

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 44 of 46
Court as to all entities and agencies to which such material has been disseminated and by whom gathered; and that all records disseminated be collected and sealed, including all copies of such disseminated records that ' may have been subject to further dissemination by others;
G. Entry of a permanent injunction barring the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, and other federal agencies from taking or aCcessing identification and other information compelled by political arrests by local law enforcement authorities;
H. Compensatory damages against the District of Columbia and the unknown named police departments for violations offederal rights pursuant to 42 u.s.C. § 1983, in an amount appropriate to the proofadduced at trial;
I. Compensatory damages against the District of ColUmbia, for violations of common law rights, pursuant to respondeat superior, in an amount appropriate to the proofadduced at trial;
J. . Compensatory damages and punitive damages against Ralnsey, Williams, and the unknown named police officers sued in their individual capacities for violations offederal rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ifthey are D.C. or state actors or in joint action with state or D.C. actors) or pursuant 44

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 45 of 46 to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ofthe Federal Bureau of Narcotics (ifthey are federal agents or in join! action with federal agents) in an amount appropriate to the proof adduced at trial;
K. Compensation by the responsible parties for the value ofproperty that was damaged or destroyed or converted;
1. Compensation by the responsible parties for negligence and negligent SUperYlSlOn;
M. An award of plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the Equal Access to Justice Act, and any other applicable statute or rule oflaw; and
N. Such other and further relief, including all appropriate equitable relief, as to the Court may seem just and proper.
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE
45

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 16 Filed 02/07/03 Page 46 of 46
Respectfully submitted,
!~
C¥Messineo (#450033) Mara Verheyden-Hilliard (#430031) Zachary Wolfe (#463548) PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE, INC. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
MASS DEFENSE COMMlTTEE 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 607 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 530-5630 (202) 530-5634 - facsimile
Counselfor Plaintifft .
Certificate of Service As ofthe time offiling, defendants have not been served with the Summons and initial Complaint in this matter. The foregoing First Amended Complaint, therefore, shall be served with the service ofprocess, as will be reflected in the Return of Service.
46

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 24 Filed 04/08/03 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

:

Plaintiffs

:

:

v.

:

:

:

CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al.,

:

Defendants.

:

_________________________________________ :

Civil Action No. 02-2283 (RMU)

DISTRICT DEFANDANTS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND FOR ENLARGEMENTS OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
District Defendants Charles H. Ramsey, Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”), MPD, the District of Columbia (the “District”), and Mayor Anthony Williams (collectively, “District Defendants”), respectfully move the Court (i) to consolidate the present action with Abbate v. Ramsey, No. 03-676 (EGS) and (ii) to enlarge further the time within which the defendants may answer or move with respect to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint and respond to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.1 Undersigned counsel conferred with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the relief sought herein, at which time plaintiffs’ did not grant their consent to such relief. LCvR 7.1 (m).

1 The District Defendants have not previously sought a motion for enlargement of time with respect to the motion for class certification.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 24 Filed 04/08/03 Page 2 of 9

APRIL 8, 2003

Respectfully submitted,
ARABELLA W. TEAL Interim Corporation Counsel JOHN C. GREENHAUGH Senior Deputy Corp. Counsel for Torts & Equity
ROBERT C. UTIGER [437130] Deputy Corporation Counsel Equity Division
JACQUES P. LERNER, ESQ. [440998] Office of the Corporation Counsel, D.C. 441-4th Street N.W., Suite 6045 South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6598
ATTORNEYS FOR THE DISTRICT DEFENDANTS

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 24 Filed 04/08/03 Page 3 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

:

Plaintiffs

:

:

v.

:

:

:

CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al.,

:

Defendants.

:

_________________________________________ :

Civil Action No. 02-2283 (RMU)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The District Defendants respectfully submit this memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion (i) to consolidate the present action with Abbate v. Ramsey, No. 03 CV 767 (EGS) and (ii) to enlarge further the time within which the defendants may answer or move with respect to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint and respond to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on or about November 19, 2002 and an amended complaint on or about February 7, 2003, together with a motion for class certification. The plaintiffs challenge arrests effected at or near Pershing Park on September 27, 2002, together with arrests elsewhere in the central business district on that day, and ensuing detentions. On

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 24 Filed 04/08/03 Page 4 of 9
February 27, 2003, the District Defendants filed a consent motion to enlarge to April 8, 2003, the time within which they might respond to the complaint. The Court granted the motion to enlarge on March 9, 2003.
On March 27, 2003, five named plaintiffs filed a putative class action in this Court, styled Abbate v. Ramsey, No. 03-767, challenging the Pershing Park arrests and detentions that are a principal subject of the amended complaint herein. The Abbate case was assigned to Judge Sullivan. On the following day, the plaintiffs in Abbate filed a motion to coordinate briefing and argument on the motions for class certification already on file in the present case and to be filed in Abbate.
Contemporaneously with this motion, the District Defendants are filing a comparable motion to enlarge and a memorandum in response to the Abbate plaintiffs’ motion to coordinate. The District Defendants respectfully suggest that the Court should consolidate the two cases because they both purport to be class actions dealing with the same events and transactions.
Like this case, Abbate is a putative class action arising out of the Pershing Park arrests on September 27, 2003. The plaintiffs here have named more defendants than have the plaintiffs in Abbate, and the allegations here go beyond the arrests effected by the MPD at Pershing Park to include alleged activities of other governmental entities and events that transpired at additional locations. However, the core issues of the Abbate complaint, concerning the September 27 arrests at Pershing Park, plainly overlap the allegations of the complaint in this case.
The District Defendants believe that in response to the plaintiffs’ motion, the Court should go beyond the mere coordination of argument on the class certification motions and should consolidate the two class actions. To that end, the Court should direct counsel for plaintiffs in the two cases to cooperate in the filing of a single consolidated amended complaint

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 24 Filed 04/08/03 Page 5 of 9
that will embrace the allegations common to the two cases, so that the Court and the defendants do not have to deal with two simultaneous class actions that address the same occurrences and events.
Directing consolidation will be in accord with the general rule that the Court should not certify more than one class action where different putative class representatives and their counsel press competing claims. See Manual for Complex Litigation, § 30.15, at 219 (3d ed. 1995). A leading treatise on class actions is in accord:
To facilitate case management for determining common class issues which will be the basis for discovery and trial, the court may direct the multiple parties [plaintiffs] to file a consolidated class complaint or to amend the relevant complaints to make them uniform regarding the scope of the class and the alternative legal theories alleged . . . . [3 Conte & Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, § 7:31, at 93 (4th ed. 2002).] The District Defendants take no position as to whether this Court, or Judge Sullivan, to whom the plaintiffs have presented their motion to coordinate in Abbate, should preside over one consolidated proceeding. This Court has the earlier filed of the two proposed class actions. Defendants note that the case of Chang v. District of Columbia, No. 02-2010, is also assigned to Judge Sullivan. Chang is an earlier case but not a proposed class action. It is brought by seven plaintiffs who challenge their arrests and the circumstances of their ensuing confinement, in connection with their presence at Pershing Park allegedly either as legal observers or as photojournalists, though not as demonstrators. Chang plainly is related in subject-matter to Abbate and the present case, and it may thus effect judicial economy to assign all three cases to a single Judge.2
2The Court also should be aware of Franklin Jones v. District of Columbia, 02-2310, pending before Judge Kessler. That case, filed after Chang, but before Barham, is not a class action and is brought by three plaintiffs – one of whom allegedly was arrested at Pershing Park and the

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 24 Filed 04/08/03 Page 6 of 9
While the Court is considering the present motion to consolidate and the District Defendants’ response to the Abbate plaintiffs’ motion to coordinate, the District Defendants respectfully request that the Court enlarge further their time to respond to the amended complaint and enlarge their time to respond to the motion for class certification.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and for such further reasons as may appear to the Court, the District Defendants respectfully submit that the Court should consolidate this case with Abbate so as to present a single putative class action to which the various defendants may respond in due course. In the interim, the Court should defer the District defendants’ responses to the complaint and the motion for class certification. A proposed form of order embodying the foregoing suggestion is annexed to this memorandum.3
other two elsewhere. The District previously submitted notices of related cases in Chang and Jones. 3The proposed order contemplates that counsel in the two pending putative class actions will be able to agree among themselves upon a single consolidated amended complaint. In the event that counsel are unable to do so, the Manual prescribes the various considerations that the Court will wish to consider and procedures to be followed in structuring a single putative class action. See Manual, supra, §§ 30.15 (multiple cases and classes/subclasses), 30.16 (selection of counsel and representatives). In the event the Court declines to grant the instant motion, the District defendants respectfully request in the alternative that they be permitted an additional 15 and 30 days following the Court’s decision on the motion, respectively, to respond to plaintiffs’ amended complaint and motion for class certification.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 24 Filed 04/08/03 Page 7 of 9

APRIL 8, 2003

Respectfully submitted,
ARABELLA W. TEAL Interim Corporation Counsel JOHN C. GREENHAUGH Senior Deputy Corp. Counsel for Torts & Equity
ROBERT C. UTIGER [437130] Deputy Corporation Counsel Equity Division
JACQUES P. LERNER, ESQ. [440998] Office of the Corporation Counsel, D.C. 441-4th Street N.W., Suite 6045 South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6598 ATTORNEYS FOR THE DISTRICT DEFENDANTS

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 24 Filed 04/08/03 Page 8 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFERY BARHAM, et al.,

:

Plaintiffs

:

:

v.

:

:

:

CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al.,

:

Defendants.

:

_________________________________________ :

Civil Action No. 02-2283 (RMU)

ORDER

Upon the motion of defendants Charles H. Ramsey, Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department (the “MPD”), and the District of Columbia (the “District”), collectively, the “District Defendants,” for an order (i) to consolidate the present action with Abbate v. Ramsey, No. 03767 (EGS) and (ii) to enlarge further the time within which the District Defendants may answer or move with respect to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint and (iii) to respond to or oppose the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, plaintiffs having been heard in opposition thereto, it is this ___th day of April , 2003
ORDERED that the District Defendants’ motion is GRANTED; FURTHER ORDERED that the time within which the District Defendants shall answer or move with respect to the complaint and respond to the Class Certification Motion hereby is enlarged pending further order of the Court.

_________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 24 Filed 04/08/03 Page 9 of 9
Copies to: Jacques P. Lerner, Esq. Office of the Corporation Counsel 441-4th St., N.W., Sixth Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 Zachary Wolfe, Esq. Partnership for the Civil Justice, Inc. National Lawyers Guild Mass Defense Committee 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 607 Washington D.C. 2 0006

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 1 of 49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al, Plaintiffs, v.
CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 02-2283 EGS ) ) ) ) )

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Federal defendants1 respectfully move, pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) to dismiss the Amended Complaint. In

the alternative, this Court should enter summary judgment in

favor of the federal defendants, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56,

because there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

federal defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In support of this motion, the Court is respectfully referred to

the accompanying statement of material facts not in

1 The federal defendants are Gale A. Norton, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, John Ashcroft, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the United States, the United States of America, and Unidentified Officers, Supervisors and Law Enforcement Agencies which may be federal, in their official and individual capacities.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 2 of 49
dispute, memorandum of points and authorities, declarations and exhibits. A proposed order is also attached.
Respectfully submitted, ROSCOE C. HOWARD, JR., D.C. BAR #246470 United States Attorney MARK E. NAGLE, D.C. BAR #416364 Assistant United States Attorney
EDITH M. SHINE, D.C. BAR # 458775 Assistant United States Attorney
MARINA UTGOFF BRASWELL, DC BAR #416587 Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W., 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-7226
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 3 of 49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al, Plaintiffs, v.
CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 02-2283 EGS ) ) ) ) )

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(h), federal defendants

hereby submit their statement of material facts as to which there

is no genuine issue:

1. On September 27, 2002, demonstrations occurred in

Washington, D.C. in connection with the World Bank [WB] and

International Money Fund [IMF] meetings that took place in the

city. Declaration of Richard Murphy filed in Chang v. United

States, Civil No. 02-0210 EGS (D.D.C.) [Chang Murphy Dec.], copy

attached, ¶¶ 17, 36, 41.

2. In recent history, these meetings have been accompanied

by demonstrations which have involved, sometimes successfully,

efforts to disrupt the meetings and activities in the cities in

which the meetings were taking place. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶¶ 14 &

15 & Exhs. 1 & 2; Declaration of James W. Rice, II [Rice Dec.], ¶

3.

3. Before the September 27, 2002 WB/IMF meetings took

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 4 of 49
place, law enforcement agencies consulted with each other in order to address the problems caused by the disruptive demonstrations in the past. Such coordination is the standard operating procedure for federal law enforcement. Declaration of Richard Murphy in this case [Barham Murphy Dec.], ¶ 4.
4. The Park Police had received information that certain groups of demonstrators intended to disrupt rush hour traffic in Washington, D.C. and to “quarantine” the World Bank/IMF complex in order to disrupt the meetings occurring therein. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶¶ 17, 36 & Exh. 3. The FBI was aware of the possibility of a terrorist attack or other violence. Rice Dec., ¶ 3.
5. The National Park Service annually hosts more than 3,000 demonstrations and special events and regularly engages in advance public safety planning with other federal and local law enforcement agencies as part of its routine procedures. Barham Murphy Dec., ¶ 4.
6. Pursuant to Presidential Decision Directive 39 [PDD-39], signed June 21, 1995, the FBI is the lead federal agency responsible for addressing threats or acts of terrorism in this country. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.85a(k)(1).
7. In May 1998, PDD-62 designated the FBI as the lead federal agency for crisis management in connection with a Weapon of Mass Destruction [WMD] incident. Rice Dec., ¶ 4.
8. With respect to the September 27, 2002 demonstrations,
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 5 of 49
the FBI's role was: (1) to prevent, respond and investigate any terrorist-related incidents that affected the WB/IMF meeting or participants; (2) to investigate any crimes that occurred against federal property or assaults upon foreign officials (such as WB/IMF attendees) or federal employees; (3) to gather intelligence related to the event; and (4) to provide liaison and assistance, as requested, to local law enforcement and firerescue personnel. Rice Dec., ¶ 4.
9. Prior to the September 27th demonstrations, law enforcement agencies including the FBI and the Park Police participated in meetings to discuss how to respond to possible scenarios that could arise during the demonstrations, including the possibility of assaults, vandalism, rioting, or terrorist attacks. Rice Dec., ¶ 5.
10. During these meetings, there was no discussion regarding making illegal arrests of demonstrators, or taking any action to improperly disrupt the demonstrators’ lawful activities. Rice Dec., ¶ 6; Barham Murphy Dec., ¶ 6.
11. The Park Police primarily focused its efforts on protecting federal parkland but it was also ready to provide assistance to the Metropolitan Police Department [MPD]. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 19.
12. The Park Police occasionally assists MPD and other federal law enforcement agencies in the District of Columbia.
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 6 of 49
Id. at ¶¶ 11, 21. In such situations, backup officers depend on the requesting officer’s full knowledge of the situation and expect that the requesting officer is justified in undertaking such arrests and searches that may occur. Id.
13. Cooperation and coordination between police agencies is often critical because police resources are stretched to cover various responsibilities throughout the city. Id.
14. A decision to make an arrest rests on the arresting police agency. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 21.
15. The FBI’s role consisted of various tasks, including intelligence gathering, monitoring crowd movement and surveillance for possible terrorist or criminal activity, and at the request of MPD, providing portable fingerprint processing equipment and FBI employees to operate that equipment. Rice Dec., ¶¶ 7-9.
16. On September 27, 2002, a large group of demonstrators gathered in Pershing Park. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 41.
17. MPD police officers formed a police line on the west side of Pershing Park, and requested back-up assistance from the Park Police. Id. at ¶ 13.
18. The Park Police was informed by high-ranking MPD officials that demonstrators in Pershing Park had caused property damage in one commercial area, and MPD intended to prevent them from traveling to another commercial area where they might be
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 7 of 49
expected to cause additional property damage. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 42; Barham Dec., ¶ 7.
19. Based on this MPD request for assistance, the Park Police formed a partial and limited static police line on the north and south sides of Pershing Park. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 43.
20. Neither the Park Police nor the FBI made any arrests of demonstrators, with the exception of one arrest by Park Police in a different area. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 53 & Exh. 8; Rice Dec., ¶ 8.
21. MPD decided to make mass arrests after MPD officers moved the demonstrators within Pershing Park into a smaller area within the Park, and this decision was reached without consulting the Park Police or the FBI. Chang Murphy Dec. at ¶¶ 45-48; Barham Murphy Dec., ¶ 8.
22. Demonstrators were seized and flex-cuffed by MPD officers and then taken by MPD to MPD-controlled buses. During this time the only involvement by the Park Police was to maintain its limited partial static line. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶¶ 48-50.
23. The FBI had no direct contact with any arrestee. Rice Dec., ¶ 8.
24. The arrested individuals were fingerprinted by MPD personnel, who forwarded the fingerprint cards to FBI personnel, who then scanned the fingerprint cards into the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System [IAFIS], in order to
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 8 of 49
verify the identities of the arrestees. Rice Dec., ¶¶ 10, 14. 25. Adding plaintiffs’ fingerprints to the IAFIS database
is no different than what occurs any time an individual is arrested and fingerprinted by local law enforcement authorities who then routinely submit the fingerprint cards to the FBI. Rice Dec., ¶¶ 10, 14.
ROSCOE C. HOWARD, JR., D.C. BAR #246470 United States Attorney
MARK E. NAGLE, D.C. BAR #416364 Assistant United States Attorney
EDITH M. SHINE, D.C. BAR # 458775 Assistant United States Attorney
MARINA UTGOFF BRASWELL, DC BAR #416587 Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W., 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-7226
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 9 of 49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al, Plaintiffs, v.
CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 02-2283 EGS ) ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiffs have brought this case to challenge actions

allegedly taken by various law enforcement agencies, federal and

local, in connection with certain demonstrations which occurred

on September 27, 2002, here in Washington, D.C.2 In particular,

plaintiffs argue that alleged “round-ups” and mass arrests of

persons gathered in the area of Franklin Square Park and Pershing

Park, in the vicinity of 13th and 15th Streets, N.W., and

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., violated their constitutional, common

law and statutory rights. Plaintiffs allege that these arrests

demonstrate a conspiracy on the part of federal and local law

enforcement to disrupt free speech and criminalize dissent.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as well as damages for the

2 Plaintiffs also seek to certify a class of the individuals arrested on September 27, 2002. Federal defendants opposed plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on March 28, 2003. See Docket Entry # 20.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 10 of 49
violations they allege. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, as it pertains to the
federal defendants, must be dismissed. As is evident from the lack of specific factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint as to actions taken by federal law enforcement officials or agencies, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against the federal defendants. The reason for this is simple. The conduct about which plaintiffs complain, to the extent it in fact occurred, was conducted by the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department [MPD], and not by any federal agencies or employees.
The accompanying declarations of James W. Rice, II, for the FBI [Rice Dec.], and the two declarations of Richard Murphy, for the United States Park Police, show that any action taken by federal law enforcement during the course of the arrests of plaintiffs was minimal and peripheral. No federal law enforcement officers or officials “rounded-up” plaintiffs, arrested any of them, transported them to any detention facility, or detained them there. Rather, the Park Police only responded to an MPD request to help form part of a police line at Pershing Park for a limited period of time, and the FBI used its portable fingerprint processing equipment to scan fingerprint cards provided by MPD into the FBI’s fingerprint system, in order to verify the identities of the arrestees. Such actions, clearly
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 11 of 49
limited in nature, caused no legally cognizable injury to plaintiffs. Moreover, these actions are in fact the legal functions with which these federal agencies are charged.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the First Amendment Complaint should be dismissed as it pertains to the federal defendants.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Events Leading Up to September 27, 2002 This case arises out of a weekend of protests relating to the World Bank and the International Money Fund [IMF] meetings that took place in September 2002. In recent history, these meetings have been accompanied by demonstrations which have involved, sometimes successfully, efforts to disrupt the meetings and activities in the cities in which the meetings were taking place. The accompanying Declaration of Richard Murphy filed in Chang v. United States, Civil No. 02-0210 EGS (D.D.C.) [Chang Murphy Dec.],3 a case also involving arrests made during the September 27, 2002 demonstrations here in Washington, D.C., provides relevant background information leading up to these arrests and details the Park Police’s involvement in the events
3 Major Murphy is with the United States Park Police and at the time relevant to this case was a Captain formally assigned to the Park Police Special Forces Branch responsible for crowd control at major demonstrations on federal parkland in the National Capitol Region. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 3.
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 12 of 49
occurring on that day. The Chang Murphy Declaration has been supplemented by another declaration from Major Murphy in this case [Barham Murphy Dec.], which provides greater detail as to the planning that went into law enforcement’s efforts to prepare for these demonstrations. Finally, the Declaration of James W. Rice, II [Rice Dec.], a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI’s Washington Field Office, explains the FBI’s limited role in connection with processing the fingerprint cards of plaintiffs after they had been arrested and fingerprinted by MPD, and the FBI’s legal obligation to serve as the lead federal agency with respect to terrorist acts within the United States, and the activities associated with those responsibilities. Rice Dec., ¶ 4.
As the Chang and Barham Murphy Declarations and the Rice Declaration explain, law enforcement planning for the September 2002 demonstrations did not occur in a vacuum. Rather, law enforcement officials were mindful of the 1999 protests during the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle, which substantially disrupted activities in that city and resulted in significant property damage and numerous arrests. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 14 & Exh. 1; Rice Dec., ¶ 3. Again in April 2000, World Bank-IMF meetings here in Washington, D.C. were disrupted by protesters. Hundreds of people were arrested after attempting to breach an MPD police line protecting the World Bank-IMF
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 13 of 49
buildings. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 15 & Exh. 2; Rice Dec., ¶ 3. Subsequent international demonstrations of a similar vein resulted in the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers to protect themselves against attacking rioters. Rice Dec., ¶ 3.
Consequently, law enforcement agencies consulted with each other prior to the demonstrations planned for September 2002, in order to address the problems caused by the disruptive demonstrations in the past. Such coordination is the standard operating procedure for federal law enforcement. Barham Murphy Dec., ¶ 4. The World Bank/IMF meetings scheduled for that period involved a gathering of more than 8,000 national and international dignitaries, and the World Bank/IMF buildings where the meetings were to occur were designated foreign missions for that period. The Park Police had received information that certain groups of demonstrators intended to disrupt rush hour traffic in Washington, D.C. and to “quarantine” the World Bank/IMF complex in order to disrupt the meetings occurring therein. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶¶ 17, 36 & Exh. 3. The FBI was aware of the possibility of a terrorist attack or other violence, especially because these meetings were scheduled approximately one year after the September 11, 2001 deadly terrorist attacks. Rice Dec., ¶ 3.
Consistent with its charge as the agency responsible for federal parkland in Washington, D.C., the National Park Service
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 14 of 49
[NPS] engaged in extensive planning. The NPS annually hosts more than 3,000 demonstrations and special events and regularly engages in advance public safety planning with other federal and local law enforcement agencies as part of its routine procedures. Examples of this in past years include the planning that occurred before the annual Fourth of July Celebrations and the March for Life demonstrations, the 1999 NATO 50th Anniversary Summit, the 1997 Promise Keepers demonstration, the 1995 Million Man March, and the 1993 Holocaust Memorial Museum. Barham Murphy Dec., ¶ 4.
The FBI was also involved in these coordination efforts. Pursuant to Presidential Decision Directive 39 [PDD-39], signed June 21, 1995, the FBI is the lead federal agency responsible for addressing threats or acts of terrorism in this country. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.85a(k)(1). In May 1998, PDD-62 designated the FBI as the lead federal agency for crisis management in connection with a Weapon of Mass Destruction [WMD] incident. With respect to the September 27, 2002 demonstrations, the FBI's role was: (1) to prevent, respond and investigate any terrorist-related incidents that affected the WB/IMF meeting or participants; (2) to investigate any crimes that occurred against federal property or assaults upon foreign officials (such as WB/IMF attendees) or federal employees; (3) to gather intelligence related to the event; and (4) to provide liaison and assistance, as requested, to local law enforcement and fire-rescue personnel. Rice Dec., ¶
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 15 of 49
4. Prior to the September 27th demonstrations, law enforcement
agencies including the FBI, the Park Police, the United States Marshal’s Service, and the United States Capitol Police participated in meetings to discuss how to respond to possible scenarios that could arise during the demonstrations, including the possibility of assaults, vandalism, rioting, or terrorist attacks. Rice Dec., ¶ 5. During these meetings, there was no discussion regarding making illegal arrests of demonstrators, or taking any action to improperly disrupt the demonstrators’ lawful activities. Rice Dec., ¶ 6; Barham Murphy Dec., ¶ 6.
Recognizing that demonstrators may properly engage in conduct that does not violate the law, the Park Police identified its objectives to include maintaining security around the White House complex, protecting citizens and visitors, assuring the safety of Park Police personnel, safeguarding the Park Service’s monuments and memorials, and assuring that the World Bank-IMF meetings occurred without disruption. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 18; Barham Murphy Dec., ¶ 6.
The Park Police primarily focused its efforts on protecting federal parkland but it was also ready to provide assistance to the Metropolitan Police Department. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 19. The Park Police occasionally assists MPD and other federal law enforcement agencies in the District of Columbia. Id. at ¶¶ 11,
7

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 16 of 49
21. For example, to help address with increasing criminal activities, in 1994 the Park Police helped patrol the Fifth District of the Metropolitan Police Department. Id. Park Police assistance, however, is traditionally done on a case-by-case basis that follows a request for assistance, and after the Park Police determines whether it has sufficiently available police resources. Id.
If the Park Police has sufficiently available police resources, it will also provide backup assistance to other police agencies. Id. at ¶ 12. Such backup assistance cover a wide range of activities and situations, from ensuring that a requesting officer is not attacked while conducting an arrest or search, closing city streets following motor vehicle accidents, providing police lines, preserving crime and accident scenes, to chasing suspects identified by the requesting officer. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 12. In such situations, backup officers depend on the requesting officer’s full knowledge of the situation and expect that the requesting officer is justified in undertaking such arrests and searches that may occur. Id. See also Rice Dec., ¶ 13 (FBI did not question the basis for any arrests). Cooperation and coordination between police agencies is often critical, because police resources are stretched to cover various security areas, a large range of potential targets located throughout the metropolitan area, as well as to perform essential
8

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 17 of 49
police services in the rest of the city and Federal parkland. Id.
A decision to make an arrest, however, always rests on the arresting police agency. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 21. When back-up assistance is requested, the Park Police do not normally “secondguess” the requesting officer if the request for assistance appears reasonable. Barham Dec., ¶ 7.
The FBI’s role consisted of various tasks. Some FBI personnel were assigned to the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force to engage in intelligence gathering. At the request of MPD, additional FBI personnel were assigned to work directly with MPD intelligence teams and were supervised by MPD personnel. The duties of these FBI personnel included monitoring crowd movement and surveillance for possible terrorist or criminal activity. At the request of MPD, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 533, the FBI also provided portable fingerprint processing equipment and approximately ten support employees from the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information System [CJIS] Division to operate that equipment, in order to assist MPD with prisoner identification. Rice Dec., ¶¶ 7-9.
B. September 27, 2002 On September 27, 2002, a large group of demonstrators gathered in Pershing Park. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 41. MPD police officers formed a police line on the west side of Pershing Park,
9

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 18 of 49
and requested back-up assistance from the Park Police. Id. at ¶ 13.
Major Murphy was informed by high-ranking MPD officials that demonstrators in Pershing Park had caused property damage in one commercial area, and MPD intended to prevent them from traveling to another commercial area where they might be expected to cause additional property damage. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 42; Barham Dec., ¶ 7. Based on this MPD request for assistance, and the rapidly evolving situation, Major Murphy directed the Park Police to form a partial and limited static police line on the north and south sides of Pershing Park. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 43.
MPD then asked Major Murphy if the demonstrators could be arrested for demonstrating on federal parkland without a permit. Major Murphy responded that, although no group had been given a permit to demonstrate in the park, the Park Police would make no arrests without first warning the demonstrators that they were in violation of Park Police regulations and then allowing them the opportunity to comply with those regulations. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 44. The Park Police were not asked by MPD to issue any such warnings, nor did they do so.
The Park Police, significantly, made no arrests. Rather, MPD decided to make mass arrests after MPD officers moved the demonstrators within Pershing Park into a smaller area within the Park, and this decision was reached without consulting the Park
10

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 19 of 49
Service or the Park Police. Id. at ¶¶ 45-48. The decision to arrest the demonstrators was made without any consultation by MPD with the Park Police. Barham Murphy Dec., ¶ 8. Demonstrators were seized and flex-cuffed by MPD officers and then taken by MPD to MPD-controlled buses. During this time the only involvement by the Park Police was to maintain its limited partial static line. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶¶ 48-50; Barham Murphy Dec., ¶¶ 7-8.
The Park Police did arrest one person who is not a named plaintiff in this case. This individual was warned three times by the Park Police and chose to ignore those warnings and attempt to cross a Park Police line located on the south side curb of Pennsylvania Avenue and 15th Street. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 53 & Exh. 8. Other than this one arrest, the remaining arrests –which are the subject of this litigation -- were carried out entirely by MPD. Furthermore, “[n]either the National Park Service nor the Park Police were involved in the transport, confinement, processing or release of any of the persons who MPD arrested.” Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 16.
The FBI did not participate in crowd control or participate in any of the arrests of the demonstrators. The FBI also had no role in the transportation of the demonstrators arrested to the D.C. Police Academy. Rice Dec., ¶¶ 8, 10. Indeed, FBI personnel had no direct contact with any arrestee. Rather, upon their arrival, the arrested individuals were fingerprinted by MPD
11

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 20 of 49
personnel, who forwarded the fingerprint cards to FBI CJIS personnel stationed in the Academy gymnasium. FBI CJIS personnel then scanned the fingerprint cards into the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System [IAFIS], in order to verify the identities of the arrestees. Rice Dec., ¶ 9. Adding plaintiffs’ fingerprints to the IAFIS database is no different than what occurs any time an individual is arrested and fingerprinted by local law enforcement authorities who then routinely submit the fingerprint cards to the FBI. Thus, the FBI played no role in the post-arrest processing of WB/IMF demonstrators other than operating the fingerprint card scanning equipment. Rice Dec., ¶¶ 10, 14.
The FBI also was involved in intelligence-gathering, as part of its responsibilities to prevent or effectively respond to any terrorist or other criminal activities. These intelligencegathering activities, however, were limited to direct observation of crowd activity on September 27, 2002, looking for any terrorist or other criminal activity. Rice Dec., ¶ 12.
Because federal defendants were not involved in any alleged violations of the demonstrators rights, did not coordinate or conspire to violate plaintiffs’ rights, and did not participate in MPD’s decision to arrest plaintiffs or in the actual arrests themselves, the federal defendants should be dismissed from this lawsuit.
12

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 21 of 49
ARGUMENT I. Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Claims Against The
Federal Defendants Must Be Dismissed. In Counts I, II and III of the Complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, by disrupting their First Amendment activities and subjecting them to false arrest and false imprisonment. Plaintiffs also argue that defendants’ actions in processing and treating them differently than others arrested for minor offenses violates their rights to due process and equal protection under the law. Finally, plaintiffs seek to pursue their constitutional claims against the unidentified individual federal defendants under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) [Bivens]. Complaint, at p. 44.
A. The Constitutional Claims Against Unidentified Individual Federal Defendants Must Be Dismissed.
The Complaint lists as defendants “Unidentified Officers [and] Supervisors” and claims that this includes individuals who “engaged in joint action with the named defendants to deprive plaintiffs of their clearly established constitutional rights.” Complaint, ¶ 49. The Complaint further states that these unidentified individuals “engaged in the mass arrests and political roundups” without probable cause or lawful justification. Id.
13

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 22 of 49
Such allegations do not, and cannot state a claim against any unnamed individual federal defendants. There is no authority for joining fictitious unidentified defendants, and thus they should be dismissed. See, e.g., Armstrong v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 976 F. Supp. 17, 23 (D.D.C. 1997).
Moreover, it is well-settled that individual service is required in Bivens action. See Simpkins v. District of Columbia Government, 108 F.3d 366, 369 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (defendant federal officer in Bivens suit must be served as an individual, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)); James v. United States, 709 F. Supp. 257 (D.D.C. 1989)(same). Accordingly, unless an individual federal employee voluntarily makes an appearance or otherwise waives any personal jurisdiction defense, plaintiffs must begin the process of acquiring personal jurisdiction with proper service of process. The docket in this case indicates no compliance with these service requirements.
Equally important, with respect to federal employees sued in their individual capacities, the defense of qualified immunity may be then asserted as an affirmative defense. Wilson v. Layne, 523 U.S. 603, 609 (1999); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Such a defense obviously cannot be raised, however, unless the identity of the individual defendant is known and the actions such a defendant purportedly took alleged.
Plaintiffs are not entitled to use this litigation as a
14

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 23 of 49
fishing expedition to see if they can find some individual federal defendant who may have violated their rights. See Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 14 (1972) (“Stripped to its essentials, what respondents appear to be seeking is a broad-scale investigation, conducted by themselves as private parties armed with the subpoena power of a federal district court . . . .”); Ellsberg v. Mitchell, 807 F.2d 204, 207-208 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (“We decline to license any plaintiff to embark on a fishing expedition in government waters on the basis of such speculation.”); Dickson v. United States, 831 F. Supp. 893, 900 (D.D.C. 1993) (court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the CIA’s tradition of secrecy and bad faith warranted fishing expedition where plaintiffs’ allegations were factually vague and legally non-specific). This is especially true in light of the accompanying Murphy and Rice declarations, demonstrating that federal law enforcement agencies had minimal involvement in the events covered by the Complaint and the involvement they did have did not violate any of plaintiffs’ rights. See infra at 20-28.
Accordingly, to the extent the Complaint can be read to raise Bivens claims against unidentified federal employees, such claims should be dismissed.
B. The Constitutional Claims Against the Federal Organizations and Against the Individual Defendants in Their Official Capacities Must Be Dismissed On Sovereign Immunity Grounds.
To the extent that plaintiffs may be seeking damages against
15

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 24 of 49
any federal law enforcement agencies, and the individual federal defendants in their official capacities, plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed because there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims. Sovereign immunity bars all suits against the United States except in accordance with the explicit terms of the statutory waiver of such immunity. Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 190-91 (1996); Cox v. Secretary of Labor, 739 F. Supp. 29, 30 (D.D.C. 1990); see also, United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980); Kline v. Republic of El Salvador, 603 F. Supp. 1313, 1316 (D.D.C. 1985). That plaintiff may have named federal employees as defendants in their official capacities does not operate to evade the immunity of the sovereign. See Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 103-104 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (sovereign immunity acts as a bar to a damages remedy against the Librarian of Congress in an official capacity).
The Federal Tort Claims Act [FTCA] does not waive the federal government's immunity from suit for any constitutional torts that may be committed by its employees. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2679(b)(1) and (b)(2); Kline v. Republic of El Salvador, 603 F. Supp. at 1317; see also Laswell v. Brown, 683 F.2d 261 (8th Cir. 1982); Birnbaum v. United States, 588 F.2d 319, 327-328 (2nd Cir. 1978). Nor does the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., act as a waiver of sovereign immunity in suits
16

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 25 of 49
seeking money damages against the government. Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Thomas, 521 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 910 (1976); Cook County Legal Assistance Foundation v. Pauken, 573 F. Supp. 231, 234 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
Additionally, to the extent that plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint can be read to seek monetary relief in tort against an agency of the United States, it is clear that the only possible basis for jurisdiction in this Court would be under the FTCA. See Kline v. Republic of El Salvador, 603 F. Supp. at 1316.
Consequently, any damages claims for constitutional torts raised against federal agencies or employees in their official capacities must be dismissed.
C. Plaintiffs’ Claims for Injunctive Relief Against The Federal Defendants Fail for Lack of Standing.
In Steel Co., aka Chicago Steel & Pickling Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998), the Supreme Court reiterated the well established three requirements to meet the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing: (1) there must be an alleged injury in fact, (2) there must be a causation connection between the plaintiff’s injury and the complained of conduct of the defendant, and (3) there must be redressability or a likelihood that the requested relief will redress the alleged injury. The Court stated that the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence. Id. at 88.
17

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 26 of 49
Here plaintiffs’ claims against the federal defendants fail for lack of causation. Plaintiffs allege that they were the victims of false arrest and imprisonment and their First Amendment rights were violated when their demonstration activities were halted by the arrests. The Murphy and Rice declarations, however, make clear that federal law enforcement officers had no involvement in these actions. The decision to stop plaintiffs from further engaging in First Amendment activities was entirely made by MPD, not by the Park Police present on the scene. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 47; Barham Murphy Dec., ¶ 3. Similarly the FBI had no involvement in this decision. Rice Dec., ¶¶ 10, 13. Further, the actual arrests were carried out by MPD alone. Neither the Park Police nor the FBI were involved in the decision to make the arrests or the actual arrests themselves. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 47; Barham Murphy Dec., ¶ 3; Rice Dec., ¶ 8. The transportation to a detention facility, and the detention there, was also carried out solely by MPD officers. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 50; Rice Dec., ¶ 10.
The only action taken by the Park Police in connection with plaintiffs was to provide back-up assistance in the form of a partial static line near the demonstrators. Plaintiffs do not allege that the partial static line provided by the Park Police prevented them from being able to leave the area of the
18

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 27 of 49
demonstrations. Thus, to the extent that plaintiffs allege that they were harmed when they could not voluntarily disperse, or when they were arrested and transported to a detention facility, no action by federal defendants caused these injuries.
As to plaintiffs’ claims regarding having their fingerprints taken, the only action taken by the FBI was to process fingerprints through the IAFIS after MPD had gathered the fingerprints from the demonstrators who were arrested. Rice Dec., ¶¶ 10-14. Thus, plaintiffs’ claims that they were harmed by allegedly illegal fingerprinting was not a harm caused by the FBI.
Plaintiffs’ claims regarding any surveillance engaged in by the FBI fails to establish standing because it resulted in no concrete harm to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court has held that “[m]ere surveillance by government authorities” does not support a claim that a person’s First Amendment rights have been violated. Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1972). See Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148, 160 (3d Cir. 1997) (“surveillance of individuals in public places does not, by itself, implicate the Constitution”); Mason v. Ward, 1991 WL 143713, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 1991) (“Mere surveillance conducted by government authorities does not give rise to an action for violation of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.”).
19

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 28 of 49
In Laird, the Supreme Court rejected a claim that Army surveillance violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The Court held that no cognizable injury could be based on “merely [] an individual’s knowledge that a government agency was engaged in certain activities or from an individual’s concomitant fear that, armed with the fruits of those activities, the agency might take some other and additional action detrimental to the class. Laird, 408 U.S. at 11. Thus, the mere existence of government investigative and intelligence-gathering is insufficient to establish standing. Mason, 1991 WL 143713 at *6.
Finally, plaintiffs allege that they were harmed by a conspiracy between law enforcement agencies to disrupt their right to free speech and to engage in illegal mass arrests. The Murphy and Rice declarations, however, make clear that federal law enforcement agencies had no involvement in any such conspiracy. Barham Murphy Dec., ¶ 6; Rice Dec., ¶ 13; see infra at 30-37. Thus, even if plaintiffs could show that some kind of conspiracy exists and they were harmed by it, they cannot make the causal link to federal defendants.
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims against the federal defendants should be dismissed for lack of standing.
II. Federal Defendants Violated No Legal Rights of Plaintiffs in Providing Back-up Assistance To Local Law Enforcement.
The Murphy and Rice declarations set forth the limited
20

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 29 of 49
participation by the Park Police and the FBI in the events that occurred on September 27, 2002, which plaintiffs alleged caused them harm. Significantly, both the Park Police and the FBI acted at the request of MPD and, as demonstrated below, performed functions that are standard and entirely lawful.
A. Actions by the Park Police. The Park Police’s only involvement in action affecting plaintiffs was to form a limited police line around parts of Pershing Park after high level officials from MPD informed them that some members of the demonstrators had engaged in property damage in a commercial area. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶¶ 43, 49; Barham Murphy Dec., ¶ 7. The Park Police, therefore, reasonably believed that their back-up assistance was needed to prevent demonstrators from leaving the area and going to another area where property damage might occur. See Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 42. The Park Police relied in good faith on the apparently reasonable request of another law enforcement organization in forming the police line around two sides of Pershing Park. Numerous cases stand for the proposition that such reliance is proper. In Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (1971), a county sheriff obtained an arrest warrant for a person suspected of a crime and sent a message statewide over the radio describing the suspect. In reliance on the radio message, police in another county
21

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 30 of 49
stopped the suspect and searched his car. The arrest was
ultimately determined to be invalid, due to lack of probable
cause. The Supreme Court, however, stated:
We do not, of course, question that Laramie police were entitled to act on the strength of the radio bulletin. Certainly police officers called upon to aid other officers in executing arrest warrants are entitled to assume that the officers requesting aid offered the magistrate the information requisite to support an independent judicial assessment of probable cause.
Id. at 230.
In United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985), police
officers stopped a car in reliance on another police department’s
“wanted flyer,” which had been issued for armed robbery suspects.
The Supreme Court held that:
[W]hen evidence is uncovered during a search incident to an arrest in reliance merely on a flyer or bulletin, its admissibility turns on whether the officers who issued the flyer possessed probable cause to make the arrest. It does not turn on whether those relying on the flyer were themselves aware of the specific facts which led their colleagues to seek their assistance. In an era when criminal suspects are increasingly mobile and likely to flee across jurisdictional boundaries, this rule is a matter of common sense: it minimizes the volume of information concerning suspects that must be transmitted to other jurisdiction and enables police in one jurisdiction to act promptly in reliance on information from another jurisdiction.
Id., 469 U.S. at 231.
The Ninth Circuit applied the Whitley decision in United
States v. Robinson, 536 F.2d 1298, 1300 (9th Cir. 1976), to hold
that although an officer who issues a wanted bulletin must have
legally sufficient probable cause , the officer who acts in
22

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 31 of 49
reliance on the bulletin need not have personal knowledge of the evidence supporting the probable cause determination. In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit stated that:
effective law enforcement cannot be conducted unless police officers can act on directions and information transmitted by one officer to another and that officers, who must act swiftly, cannot be expected to cross-examine their fellow officers about the foundation for the transmitted information. Id. at 231. The Supreme Court in Hensley concluded that if a wanted flyer or bulletin has been issued on the basis of articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offense, then reliance on that bulletin to perform an investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), is justified. Hensley, 469 U.S. at 232. But even if it turns out that the flyer was issued in the absence of a reasonable suspicion, an officer relying in good faith on the information has a defense to a civil suit. Turner v. Raynes, 611 F.2d 92, 93 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 900 (1980) (officer relying in good faith on an invalid arrest warrant has defense to civil suit). Additionally, courts have developed the concept of “collective information,” which stands for the proposition that “probable cause is to be evaluated by the courts on the basis of the collective information of the police rather than that of only the officer who performs the act of arresting.” Smith v. United
23

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 32 of 49
States, 358 F.2d 833, 835 (D.C. Cir. 1966). As the Court of Appeals for this Circuit stated in Williams v. United States, 308 F.2d 326, 327 (D.C. Cir. 1962), “[t]he whole complex of swift modern communication in a large police department would be a futility if the authority of an individual officer was to be circumscribed by the scope of his first hand knowledge of facts concerning a crime or alleged crime.” Significantly, the Court of Appeals in Smith stated that the applicability of its decision in Williams would be no different if it involved “officers from different cities or even different police organizations. . . .” Id., 358 F.2d at 836.
As the Second Circuit stated recently in United States v. Colon, 250 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2001):
The collective knowledge doctrine was developed in recognition of the fact that with large police departments and mobile defendants, an arresting officer might not be aware of all the underlying facts that provided probable cause or reasonable suspicion, but may nonetheless act reasonably in relying on information received by other law enforcement officials. Id. at 134. The foregoing principles of collective knowledge and the right to rely on information provided by another law enforcement official properly extend from the criminal arena to the area of civil liability. As the Fifth Circuit stated in Turner v. Raynes: It would be a strange and unworkable rule that required a sheriff, at his peril, to determine the ultimate legal
24

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 33 of 49
validity of every warrant – regular on its face and issued by proper authority – before serving it. 611 F.2d at 93. The apparent reasonableness of MPD’s request was all that was required to permit federal law enforcement officials to assist MPD. Moreover, maintaining a Park Police line is far less of an intrusion than the Terry stop at issue in Hensley or Whitely. The police line was requested by high level MPD officials, who earlier had been dealing with the group and observed that the group had earlier vandalized one commercial area and was concerned that the group would try to do it again. See Chang Murphy Dec., ¶¶ 41, 43. With the Park Police reasonably and objectively relying on the other police agency’s request, the Park Police are entitled to Hensley’s good-faith defense. The reason for this is clear: if backup officers are somehow first required to inquire into all of the underlying facts and circumstances before they provide assistance to another agency, effective law enforcement –- which sometimes requires officers to make instant decisions and take actions to ensure public safety –- would be seriously hindered. Id. at ¶ 13. In this situation, the Park Police were aware that property damage had been done by some individuals involved in the protests and reasonably responded to a request for assistance by the Metropolitan Police Department in forming a police line. Id. at ¶¶ 41, 43.
25

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 34 of 49
Additionally, “[a]s a general rule, mere presence at the scene of a search, without a showing of direct responsibility for the action, will not subject an officer to liability.” Ghandi v. Police Dept. Of City of Detroit, 747 F.2d 338, 352 (6th Cir. 1984). As such, the Sixth Circuit has ruled that officers were not liable when they had “no direct involvement in a search [but t]heir only function was to insure the integrity of the search . . . ” Accord Hays v. Jefferson County, Ky., 668 F.2d 869, 874 (6th Cir. 1982), Aquisto v. Danbert, No. 97-1668, 1998 U.S.App.LEXIS 21694 (6th Cir. 1998)(Local Rule 24 Citation)(officer who entered house but did not participate in search not liable). This rationale applies in both search and arrest situations, and therefore, the Park Police are not liable, given their limited role as part of a police line, and lack of involvement in the decision to make the arrests and the actual arrests themselves.
B. The FBI Plaintiffs allege that the FBI was involved in allegedly illegal fingerprinting of the demonstrators arrested. But the FBI’s only involvement in this regard was to process fingerprint cards given to them by MPD, after MPD officials took fingerprints from the demonstrators arrested. Rice Dec., ¶ 10. The FBI is authorized to provide assistance to local law enforcement officials by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 533. Rice Dec.,
26

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 35 of 49
¶ 9; 1 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 31 (Mar. 22, 1977) at 31, found at 1997 WL 18016. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 534(a)(1), the Attorney General “shall acquire, collect, classify, and preserve identification, criminal identification, crime and other records,” and the word “shall” denotes a requirement and not merely an authorization. United States v. Rosen, 343 F. Supp. 804, 806 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). The FBI has been delegated the duty to collect this information pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 534(c). See 28 C.F.R. § 0.85(b) (FBI shall “collect and preserve fingerprints and identification records from criminal justice and other governmental agencies”). Significantly, the FBI has no duty to independently determine the validity of the arrests before entering fingerprints taken by local law enforcement into its criminal database. Crow v. Kelley, 512 F.2d 752, 754 (8th Cir. 1975).
The foregoing demonstrates that the FBI CJIS employees who took fingerprint cards from MPD officials and scanned the information into the FBI’s IAFIS were performing duties they are required to do by law. Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the FBI involvement in the fingerprinting process, therefore, are unavailing.
Moreover, the FBI does not disseminate arrestees’ information. Rather, information concerning plaintiffs’ arrests was scanned into the IAFIS databank, just like in the case of
27

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 36 of 49
every other arrested individual who fingerprints are sent to the FBI. Rice Dec., ¶ 14. Further, access to the FBI’s databank is only available to authorized police authorities. Id.
Plaintiffs also allege that the FBI was engaged in illegal surveillance activities during the demonstrations. The Rice Declaration, however, explains that the FBI is responsible for addressing threats or acts of terrorism in the United States and is the lead federal agency for crisis management in connection with weapons of mass destruction. Rice Dec., ¶ 4. In order for the FBI to perform its responsibilities, it obviously had to engage in surveillance of the crowds in order to look for possible terrorist or criminal activity. Id. at ¶¶ 6-8. Significantly, the FBI only engaged in surveillance by direct observation. Rice Dec., ¶ 12.
As explained above, see supra at 19-20, the FBI’s surveillance resulted in no harm to plaintiffs. Rather, it was a product of the FBI’s legal responsibilities to deter potential terrorist or criminal activity.
Thus, the actions taken by the Park Police and the FBI were entirely within their legal responsibilities.4
4 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint provides no indication of the “other federal agencies” or what these other defendants allegedly did wrong. Id. at ¶¶ 48, 168. As such, any unidentified claims against unidentified parties must be dismissed. While federal notice pleading standards demand little, each defendant is entitled to notice of the wrongs with which he is charged. See Sparrow v. United Air Lines, 216 F.3d
28

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 37 of 49
III. Plaintiffs’ Common Law Tort Claims Against The Federal Defendants Must Be Dismissed.
To the extent the Complaint seeks to raise the common law
torts of false arrest and false imprisonment, such claims must be
dismissed against federal defendant United States.5 One
prerequisite for filing a civil tort action under the FTCA is
that the claimant must first file an administrative claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). This provision is
jurisdictional and cannot be waived by equitable considerations
or otherwise. Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227, 245-46 (D.C.
Cir. 1986), reh. denied, 793 F.2d 304 (D.C. Cir. 1986), rev'd on
other grounds sub nom. United States v. Hohri, 482 U.S. 64
(1987); Stokes v. United States Postal Service, 937 F. Supp. 11,
1111, 1117 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Watt v. City of Highland Park, 2001 WL 1090152 * 2 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (“A major problem facing the court in trying to determine if plaintiffs’ second amended complaint satisfies this minimal standard is that plaintiffs have pleaded their claim against all of the defendants without differentiation.”)(quoting Ryan v. Mary Immaculate Queen Center, 188 F.3d 857, 860 (7th Cir. 1999)(“It is true that all the federal rules require of a complaint is that it put the defendant on notice of the plaintiff’s claim; but notice implies some minimum description of defendant’s complained-of conduct.”).
5 It does not appear that the Amended Complaint seeks to raise any common law tort claims directly against any individual federal defendants. Should plaintiffs indicate otherwise, a certification can be filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d), substituting the United States as the sole defendant in place of any individual federal defendants against whom common law tort claims have been made in connection with actions taken during the scope of such defendant’s employment. But the Amended Complaint sets forth no factual allegations of common law tort against identified individual federal defendants.
29

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 38 of 49
14 (D.D.C. 1996) (An administrative claim "is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite to filing a lawsuit against the United States."). This statutory requirement requires the putative plaintiff to file with the agency: "(1) a written statement sufficiently describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own investigation, and (2) a sum-certain damages claim." GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 919 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The purpose of the requirement is to enable the agency "to determine whether settlement or negotiations to that end are desirable" and thus perhaps obviate the need for litigation. Id. at 920.
The Complaint alleges no compliance with the FTCA's administrative claim requirements. See Complaint generally. Accordingly, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the FTCA. Therefore, to the extent that the Complaint seeks to raise any common law tort claims against the federal government, such claims must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
IV. Plaintiffs’ Civil Conspiracy Claims Should Be Dismissed Pursuant To Federal Rule 12(b)(1) And 12(b)(6). A. Plaintiffs’ Complaint Does Not Meet the Pleadings Standard Required for Pleading A Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights.
Plaintiffs appear to allege that the federal defendants conspired with the District of Columbia defendants to violate
30

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 39 of 49
plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 57-59, 159, 168. First and foremost, plaintiffs cite only to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to support their civil conspiracy claim and that statute only applies to state actors; not the federal defendants. See First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 192-197; Jett v. Dallas Independent School Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 735 (1989). Despite this pleading failure, the Amended Complaint appears to allege that the FBI, the Park Police, and other federal agencies conspired to violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. See id. at ¶¶ 57-59, 159, 168. To the extent plaintiffs’ are attempting to allege federal participation in an alleged conspiracy their claims fail for three reasons. First and foremost, no such conspiracy occurred. Second, there is no evidence of a conspiracy. Finally, the plaintiffs’ claims are so inartfully pled they fail as a matter of law.
i. Lawful Conduct Does Not a Conspiracy Make. The fact that the FBI is charged with being “[t]he lead agency for crisis management,” which includes coordination, planning and training of federal, state, and local resources to respond to mass demonstrations, does not suffice to make the FBI a party. Rice Dec. ¶ 4. If the Park Police or the FBI could be made a party based on such allegations alone, the Park Police and the FBI would be a party to every case arising from a mass demonstration in the District of Columbia, regardless of their
31

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 40 of 49
actual role in the events. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 4; Rice Dec., ¶¶ 3-5.
According to the First Amended Complaint, it was the MPD, not the FBI or the Park Police, who engaged in the alleged unlawful conduct and who made the decision to arrest plaintiffs. In fact, there is not a single, specific allegation to support a finding that the FBI, the Park Police or any other unidentified federal agencies violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The fact that the FBI and the Park Police had some duties with regard to the 2002 WB/IMF conference is insufficient to make them parties to this case.
The FBI is tasked with protecting the public and the nation's security in various ways. This requires information and data gathering, training, coordination and planning. See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. § 0.85 (setting out FBI responsibilities). These are the very actions of which plaintiffs complain. Moreover, planning for the more than 3,000 demonstrations and special events per year in the District of Columbia requires the Park Police normally to coordinate with local police authorities. Chang Murphy Dec., ¶ 4. Simply conducting federal business as tasked does not give rise to a cause of action.
ii. Plaintiffs’ Cannot Establish Facts to Support Their Ill-Pled Civil Conspiracy Claim.
To establish the elements of a civil conspiracy plaintiffs must prove four elements: (1) an agreement between two or more
32

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 41 of 49
persons (2) to participate in an unlawful act or a lawful act in unlawful manner; and (3) an injury caused by an unlawful overt act performed by one of the parties to the agreement (4) pursuant to and in furtherance of the common scheme. Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472, 477 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Riggs v. Home Builders Institute, 203 F. Supp.2d 1, 25 (D.D.C. 2002). There is no recognized independent tort action for civil conspiracy in the District of Columbia. Rather, civil conspiracy is a means for establishing vicarious liability for an underlying tort. Halberstam, 705 F.2d at 479. Thus, a successful civil conspiracy claim depends on the performance of some tortious act. Riggs, 203 F. Supp. 2d at 25; Halberstam, 705 F.2d at 477 (quoting W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 46, 293 (4th ed. 1971) (“To establish liability, plaintiffs also must prove that an unlawful overt act produced an injury and damages. ‘It is only where means are employed, or purposes are accomplished, which are themselves tortious, that the conspirators who have not acted but have promoted the act will be held liable.’”). Conspirators, therefore, may only be held liable for acts committed by coconspirators “if the acts are within the scope of the agreement, are done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and are reasonably foreseeable.” Ungar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 211 F. Supp.2d 91, 100 (D.D.C. 2002).
While it is undisputed that the federal agencies
33

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 42 of 49
coordinated with local authorities in preparing for the 2002 IMF/WB conference, there is no evidence of an agreement to violate constitutional rights - or any evidence of discussions concerning such violations. Moreover, the only evidence available indicates that the federal defendants were merely engaged in fulfilling their statutory obligations. There is no evidence that the federal agencies turned a blind eye to alleged constitutional violations. And there is even less evidence that during the inevitable coordination and planning, constitutional violations were contemplated.
To establish the first element of a conspiracy the agreement must be an “agreement to participate” in tortious conduct. Ungar, 211 F. Supp. 2d at 99. The fact the Park Police and the FBI coordinated with local and federal authorities is insufficient absent a showing that they agreed to the alleged subsequent violation of rights. Although “[p]roof of a tacit, as opposed to explicit, understanding is sufficient to show agreement,” more than simply joint action is required. Halberstam, 705 F.2d at 477. Relevant factors include the relationship between the parties’ acts, the time and place of their execution, and the duration of the joint activity. Id.; Ungar, 211 F. Supp. 2d at 100.
While “‘acts that are in themselves legal lose that character when they become constituent elements of an unlawful
34

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 43 of 49
scheme,’” Lawrence, 665 F.2d at 20-21 (quoting Continental Co. v. Union Carbide Co., 370 U.S. 690, 707 (1962)), that is not what occurred here. There was never an agreement or a scheme to violate constitutional rights. Thus, even if, arguendo, the federal defendants somehow furthered MPD’s “scheme” to violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, the federal defendants failed to take any “overt unlawful act, or lawful act in an unlawful manner.” Halberstam 705 F.2d at 477 (“It is only where means are employed . . . which are themselves tortious, that the conspirators who have not acted but have promoted the act will be liable.”). Thus, the federal defendants’ lawful actions cannot give rise to any liability.
iii. Conspiracy Claims must Be Pled with Specificity. Plaintiffs’ conspiracy allegation(s) against the federal defendants also must fail because it does not meet the standards required for pleading a civil conspiracy claims. Thomas v. News World Communications et al., 681 F. Supp. 55 (D.D.C. 1988)(citing Hobson v. Wilson 737 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).6 “A party must
6 Although a "heightened pleading standard" for § 1983 claims, and other cases in which qualified immunity was a likely defense, was rejected in Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998), the Supreme Court made it clear that it does not mean to allow mere generalized unsupported assertions to state a cause of action. The Court suggested that demanding a more definite statement, and “limit[ing] the time, place, and manner of discovery or even barr[ing] discovery altogether were appropriate “so that officials are not subjected to unnecessary and burdensome discovery.” Crawford-El, 523 U.S. at 598-99. The Court suggested that the “court could grant the defendant’s
35

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 44 of 49
state with specificity the facts that he believes show the existence and scope of the alleged conspiracy, regardless of whether his claim is against a private party or a public official.” Hudson v. Kagan-Kans et al., 1993 WL 32358 *1 (D.C. Cir. 1993). A plaintiff is required to allege a connection between the overt acts, the furtherance of the conspiracy and the plaintiff’s injury. Graves v. United States of America, 961 F. Supp. 314 (D.D.C. 1997) (court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to show with “particularity what acts a defendant performed to carry the conspiracy into effect, how those acts fit into the conspiracy, and how injury to the plaintiff was forseeable”); Martin v. Malhoyt, 830 F.2d 237, 258 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“[u]nsupported factual allegations which fail to specify in detail the factual basis necessary to enable [defendants] to intelligently prepare their defense, will not suffice to sustain a claim of governmental conspiracy to deprive [plaintiffs] of their constitutional rights.”)
“Plaintiffs have a ‘weighty burden to establish a civil rights conspiracy’ and must allege facts that would at least
motion for a more definite statement” and “may insist that the plaintiff ‘put forward specific nonconclusory factual allegations’ that establish improper motive causing cognizable injury in order to survive a prediscovery motion for dismissal or summary judgment. This option exists even if the official chooses not to plead the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Id. at 598 (quoting Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991)).
36

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 45 of 49
raise an inference ‘that each member of the alleged conspiracy shared the same conspiratorial objective.’” Cottom v. Town of Seven Devils, 2000 WL 1808990 *4 (W.D.N.C.) (quoting Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416, 421 (4th Cir. 1996)). “Mere allegations of joint action or a conspiracy are not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss; . . . in order to allege a [civil rights] conspiracy, a plaintiff needs to describe the ‘form and scope’ of the conspiracy such as the term of the agreements constituting the conspiracy, when these agreements were formed, and what the participants’ roles were.” Watt v. City of Highland Park, 2001 WL 1090152 *7 (N.D. Ill.)(citations omitted.)
Here, plaintiffs have pled no facts that support a claim of a conspiracy to violate their constitutional rights. Legal conclusions mischaracterized as facts do not state a claim for a cause of action for conspiracy against federal defendants. Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, to the extent that the Amended Complaint can be read to raise a claim for conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, such a claim should be dismissed.
37

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 46 of 49
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, federal defendants' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
ROSCOE C. HOWARD, JR., D.C. BAR #246470 United States Attorney
MARK E. NAGLE, D.C. BAR #416364 Assistant United States Attorney
EDITH M. SHINE, D.C. BAR # 458775 Assistant United States Attorney
MARINA UTGOFF BRASWELL, D.C. BAR #416587 Assistant United States Attorneys 555 4th Street, N.W., 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-7226
38

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 47 of 49
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the accompanying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Or In The Alternative For Summary Judgment, with declarations and exhibits, was served upon plaintiffs by electronic filing on this 25th day of April, 2003.
MARINA UTGOFF BRASWELL, D.C. Bar #416587 Assistant United States Attorney Judiciary Center Building -- Rm. 10-413 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 514-7226

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 48 of 49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al, Plaintiffs, v.
CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 02-2283 EGS ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

Under consideration of federal defendants' motion to

dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment, of

all the papers filed in support of and in opposition to that

motion, and of the entire record, it is hereby

ORDERED federal defendants' motion is granted, and it is

further

ORDERED that judgment shall be entered in favor of federal

defendants and this case as it pertains to the federal defendants

shall be dismissed with prejudice.

__________ DATE

__________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 32 Filed 04/25/03 Page 49 of 49
COPIES TO: Edith M. Shine Marina Utgoff Braswell Assistant United States Attorneys Judiciary Center Building -- 10th Floor 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Jacques P. Lerner, Esq. Office of the Corporation Counsel
for the District of Columbia 441 4th Street, N.W. Suite 6019 South Washington, D.C. 20001 Carl L. Messineo, Esq. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Esq. Zachary J. Wolfe, Esq. Partnership for Civil Justice 1901 Pa. Ave., N.W., Suite 607 Washington, D.C. 20006
2

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 1 of 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

______________________________

)

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

Civ. Action No. 02-2010 (EGS) Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)

______________________________

)

FRANKLIN JONES, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

Civ. Action No. 02-2310 (EGS)

______________________________

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 2 of 39

)

JULIE ABBATE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

Civ. Action No. 03-767 (EGS)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves pending motions for consolidation and class certification. These four cases concern the events of September 27, 2002, when approximately 3000 to 5000 people joined in demonstrations in the District of Columbia protesting the policies of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United States government. See, e.g., Chang Compl. ¶¶ 33-34. On that date, all named and individual plaintiffs in these actions were at or near a demonstration taking place in General John Pershing Park ("Pershing Park"), located on Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. between 14th and 15th Streets N.W., when police officers surrounded them, along with approximately 400 other individuals who were in the Park, and arrested them. Id. ¶¶ 12, 47-53. Plaintiffs allege that they were subsequently handcuffed and held on buses for up to 13 hours, and later detained at the Police Academy Gymnasium for periods ranging from 18 to 36 hours with one wrist cuffed to

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 3 of 39
the opposite ankle. Id. ¶¶ 12, 47-61. Plaintiffs in all cases assert First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendment claims against the District of Columbia, alleging interference with protest, assembly, and journalism activities protected by the First Amendment, as well as violations of their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Additionally, plaintiffs in Chang and Barham assert common law claims of false arrest and false imprisonment against the District of Columbia. Barham plaintiffs also present an Equal Protection challenge to the District's alleged policy of offering only a "post and forfeit" option to those arrested in political demonstrations when a "post and trial" option, by which a detainee secures release without forfeiting any trial rights, is customarily offered to those arrested for other minor offenses. Certain individual plaintiffs in Barham assert conversion and trespass to chattel claims against the District based on seizure of their property, including video equipment, bags, and bicycles, at the time of their arrest. Finally, the Chang and Barham actions also name federal law enforcement agencies as defendants, seeking injunctive relief precluding those agencies from utilizing or participating in the challenged tactics.
All four actions seek common relief from the District of Columbia: entry of a judgment declaring the Metropolitan Police
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 4 of 39
Department's so-called "trap and arrest" policies and practices unlawful under the First and Fourth Amendments, entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from utilizing such tactics, an order sealing or expunging the arrest records of all individuals arrested in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002, and individual compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I. Class actions
Two of the above-captioned cases were commenced as class actions in which the proposed class would include all persons arrested in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002. The first such action, Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 02-2253, asserts class claims against Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton in her official capacity, based on plaintiffs' allegation that federal law enforcement agencies actively participated in the challenged conduct. In addition, Barham raises claims against the Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") and the District of Columbia, as well as against MPD Chief Charles H. Ramsey and District of Columbia Mayor Anthony A. Williams in both their individual and official capacities. The second putative class action, Abbate v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 03-767, interposes class claims analogous to Barham plaintiffs' claims against the District of Columbia and Chief Ramsey in his individual capacity only, and seeks similar relief.
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 5 of 39
A. Consolidation District defendants move to consolidate these two putative class actions on the grounds that both seek to assert class claims based on the same events and transactions, and the "core issues" raised by the Abbate action "plainly overlap" with some of class claims presented by the Barham plaintiffs. They further submit, citing to the Manual for Complex Litigation, that as a general rule, a court should not certify more than one class action where different proposed class representatives and their counsel press competing claims. See Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation at 219 (3d ed. 1995) ("Rarely should more than one [class action] be certified, although under appropriate circumstances subclasses may be considered."). District defendants contend that consolidation of these cases would serve the interests of judicial economy and reduce the litigation burden on defendants, and ask the Court to direct counsel for plaintiffs in Barham and Abbate to cooperate in the filing of a single, consolidated amended complaint embracing the class allegations common to both cases. Consolidation is provided for by Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), which states: When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 6 of 39
may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. "The decision whether to consolidate cases under Rule 42(a) is within the broad discretion of the trial court." Stewart v. O'Neill, 225 F. Supp.2d 16, 20 (D.D.C. 2002). Generally speaking, when exercising their discretion with respect to consolidation of actions, courts weigh considerations of convenience and economy against considerations of confusion and prejudice. Id. Consolidation may increase judicial efficiency by reducing presentation of duplicative proof at trial, eliminating the need for more than one judge to familiarize themselves with the issues presented, and reducing excess costs to all parties and the government. Id. Consolidation is particularly appropriate where, as here, "two cases each involve review of the same underlying decision." See Biochem Pharma, Inc. v. Emory University, 148 F. Supp.2d 11, 12 (D.D.C. 2001). Plaintiffs in both class actions oppose the motion for consolidation, although Barham plaintiffs do not oppose coordination of pre-trial and discovery matters in the two cases. Predictably, both groups of putative class representatives submit that it would be more expeditious to simply certify their class and deny the motion for class certification in the other case than to consolidate the two proposed class actions. Barham
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 7 of 39
plaintiffs argue that their action should be certified as a class action because it was the first filed, tolling any applicable statutes of limitation with respect to District defendants two months earlier than the Abbate action. Conversely, the Abbate case was filed nearly two months after Barham, wholly fails to toll the statute with respect to federal defendants, and asserts more limited claims against only the District of Columbia and its Chief of Police. Barham plaintiffs therefore contend that, at best, commencement of the Abbate action reflects a desire on the part of the five named plaintiffs in that case to opt-out of the broader claims presented by the Barham class.
Abbate plaintiffs respond by conceding that no more than one class action should be certified based on the events in question, but take issue with defendants' recommendation that they be required to "negotiate" with plaintiffs in Barham in order to file a single, consolidated class complaint. According to Abbate plaintiffs, "[t]his approach would severely prejudice plaintiffs' ability to represent the class in the manner that they think is best, as reflected in their complaint." They further state that it is "unnecessary and prejudicial to plaintiffs to require them at this stage to abandon their complaint and to negotiate a new one with the Barham plaintiffs," suggesting instead that the Court should simply decide which class should be recognized based
7

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 8 of 39
on which class action best represents the interests of the class to be certified.
Moreover, Abbate plaintiffs maintain that their action best serves the common interests of the class because it advances class members' interest in obtaining prompt and full compensation from and injunctive relief against the District and Chief Ramsey, the parties most directly responsible for their injuries. They further allege that, by adding federal defendants to their class action, Barham plaintiffs have assumed an additional burden of proof, which will lead to significant delays in the proceedings, without increasing or enhancing the compensation or injunctive relief available. In support of this contention, Abbate plaintiffs claim that any injunctive relief obtained against the District would necessarily reach any federal agencies or officers acting in concert with the MPD, thus effectively barring any law enforcement agencies operating within the District from engaging in the challenged practices. They further argue that any benefit to be gained by the Barham plaintiffs' assertion of Bivens claims against federal officers and FBI agents is minimal, and would not inure to the entire class. Abbate plaintiffs therefore contend that Barham plaintiffs' pursuit of additional federal defendants actually harms the interests of absent class members in obtaining full and prompt relief. Finally, they submit that certifying the
8

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 9 of 39
Abbate class action will not prejudice those plaintiffs who wish to proceed against the federal government or officers, as they would remain free to do so either in a separate class action or individually, and the statute of limitations for such an action would remain tolled by virtue of the filing of the Barham action.
Federal defendants also oppose the motion to consolidate, arguing that, at least as to them, the cases raise no common issues of fact or law, and consolidation would thus lead only to confusion with respect to which claims are asserted against federal defendants as opposed to District defendants. In the alternative, they ask that the Court first resolve their pending potentially dispositive motion before ruling on District defendants' motion to consolidate.1
Notwithstanding the concerns raised by the parties, the Court orally granted District defendants' motion to consolidate the Barham and Abbate actions at the conclusion of the hearing on pending motions held on September 11, 2003, with one significant
1 The Court has also considered, and rejects, federal defendants' proposal that two class actions be certified, the first raising claims against federal defendants and the second focusing solely on District defendants. The Court believes no efficiencies would result from such an approach, as on the minimal record currently before it, including evidence submitted by federal defendants, it appears that the interactions and interrelationship between federal law enforcement agencies and the MPD will be of central importance to the litigation.
9

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 10 of 39
amendment -- the Court directed plaintiffs in Abbate and Barham to file a single consolidated complaint joining all of the claims raised in both cases. The Court believed that this approach, rather than selecting from among the two competing class actions, would ultimately best serve the interests of absent proposed class members in vindicating their constitutional and common law rights by enabling them to assert the broadest range of claims against all alleged perpetrators of the harm claimed, while benefitting from the wealth of talent brought by plaintiffs' counsel in both cases. Furthermore, during oral argument on the pending motions, plaintiffs' counsel in the Abbate case dispelled any concerns regarding potential conflicts among the interests of members of a consolidated class by assuring the Court and parties that Abbate plaintiffs had no intention of contesting federal defendants' liability for their injuries, but rather had simply made a strategic decision not to pursue claims against those defendants. The Court remains persuaded that consolidation would not result in any undue delay in resolving claims against the District. Abbate plaintiffs were unable to offer any persuasive reason why the District claims would proceed any more quickly than those against the federal government, given that the issues raised by the claims against the District of Columbia are no less complex than those presented by the federal claims. Furthermore,
10

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 11 of 39
the Court concluded that no one would be prejudiced through consolidation, as any plaintiff who absolutely wished to pursue the strategic approach vigorously advocated by Abbate counsel remained free to opt out of the class action and pursue claims against the District on an individual basis.
Far from rendering this litigation more unwieldy, consolidation would increase efficiency by reducing the possibility of duplicative discovery and by achieving judicial economy in the adjudication of potentially dispositive motions involving similar material facts, a single group of actors present during the events at issue, and common questions of law. Furthermore, in an effort to address plaintiffs' concerns that undue delay will result from consolidation of the two actions, an accelerated briefing schedule was put in place to ensure that the litigation proceeds apace.
Notwithstanding the Court's direction that counsel for plaintiffs in both cases make every effort to reach an agreement as to how to proceed with a consolidated class action that would best serve the interests of named plaintiffs as well as absent class members, it appears that the Abbate plaintiffs and their counsel remain unyielding in their approach. By letters dated September 15, 2003, plaintiffs' counsel in both Barham and Abbate advised the Court that they were unable to reach an agreement
11

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 12 of 39
with respect to a consolidated class action. Based on these letters, it appears that, rather than make a good faith effort to negotiate a way forward, Abbate plaintiffs merely persevered in their opposition to consolidation. While such inflexibility is unfortunate, in light of the parties' apparently entrenched positions, the Court will reconsider its decision to consolidate the two proposed class actions. Instead, it will pursue the alternative approach suggested by both Barham and Abbate plaintiffs, and provisionally certify the Barham case as a class action and treat Abbate plaintiffs as though they have opted out of the class and have elected to proceed individually against the District with more narrow claims. Forced to choose among the two competing class actions, the Court has selected the Barham action on the grounds that it best serves the interests of absent class members to certify the class asserting the broadest claims against the greatest number of allegedly responsible parties.
B. Class Certification It appears clear based on the record currently before the Court, and particularly the revelations contained in recently disclosed reports summarizing internal MPD investigations into the events of September 27, 2002,2 that certification of a class
2 These internal reports reveal that no order to disperse was ever given to those assembled in Pershing Park prior to their
12

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 13 of 39
of persons arrested in Pershing Park on that date is appropriate under these circumstances.3
In support of their effort to proceed as a class, Barham plaintiffs allege that approximately 400 persons were subject to mass arrest in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002, and therefore the class is too numerous for joinder. They further submit that their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims, as well as their common law false arrest and false imprisonment claims, present common questions of law and fact. Barham plaintiffs argue that, by arresting all persons found in the park on the morning in question without giving a lawful order to disperse or allowing class members to obey any such order, defendants engaged in a singular police action on grounds generally applicable to the class. As a result, common questions of law and fact bearing on the alleged absence of probable cause justifying the ensuing
arrest for failure to obey a lawful police order, and that the individuals were arrested as a group without any individualized probable cause determinations. See Sep. 12, 2003 Order, Attachments.
3 The Court is mindful that District defendants have sought an extension of time to respond to Barham plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending resolution of their motion for consolidation of the two proposed class actions. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion for class certification in the Barham action on a provisional basis only, and afford the District defendants an opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration should they wish to do so.
13

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 14 of 39
arrests and detentions are the predominant questions presented. Moreover, all plaintiffs make similar allegations with respect to detention conditions, claiming that they suffered significant pain from excessively tight handcuffs, were held on buses for hours with their hands in cuffs, were taken to the gymnasium of the Institute for Police Science and handcuffed with one wrist attached to the opposing ankle for up to 36 hours, photographed, questioned by FBI agents, and deliberately misinformed of their rights. Plaintiffs therefore contend that the circumstances of arrest experienced by all class members were virtually identical, even though some individuals may have suffered additional injuries, such as deprivation of access to medication. Plaintiffs further maintain that these differences do not predominate, and can be addressed at the damages stage.
"It is, of course, well established that a principal purpose of the class-action mechanism is to advance the efficiency and economy of multi-party litigation." McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1984). While certification of a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 is "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only," class actions are
"peculiarly appropriate" when the "issues involved are common to the class as a whole" and when they "turn on questions of law applicable in the same manner to each member of the class." For in such cases, "the class-action
14

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 15 of 39
device saves the resources of both the courts and the parties by permitting an issue potentially affecting every class member to be litigated in an economical fashion under Rule 23."
General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 155
102 S. Ct. 2364 (1982) (internal citations omitted). The party
seeking certification has the burden of demonstrating that all of
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 have been met,4 and the
4 The proposed class action must satisfy all four prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a):
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
Additionally, the class must satisfy one of the three circumstances set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b):
An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition:
(1) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, or
(B) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not
15

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 16 of 39
Court has broad discretion when determining whether a particular
action is worthy of certification. McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741
F.2d at 1410; Franklin v. Barry, 909 F. Supp. 21, 30 (D.D.C.
1991). Prior to certifying a class, the Court must engage in a
"rigorous analysis" of whether the proposed class action meets
the requirements of Rule 23, and retains an ongoing obligation to
do so throughout the litigation. General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457
U.S. at 161.
As an initial matter, this Court held in Keepseagle v.
Veneman that
While Rule 23 does not formally require plaintiffs to prove
parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or
(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).
16

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 17 of 39
the existence of a class, some courts have found that "this is a common-sense requirement and . . . routinely require it." Neither the D.C. Circuit nor the Supreme Court has engaged in this additional step of the class certification analysis. Nevertheless, the Court is persuaded that some initial review of the proposed class is appropriate to ascertain whether "the general outlines of the membership of the class are determinable at the outset of litigation." This inquiry is one concerned with the court's ability to clearly identify and manage the class, and thus does not involve a "particularly stringent test." Keepseagle v. Veneman, Civil Action No. 99-3119, mem. op. at 1011 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001) (citations omitted). It appears that plaintiffs easily satisfy this threshold requirement, as the contours of the class they seek to certify are easily ascertained by reference to the MPD's arrest records for September 27, 2002. See Franklin v. Barry, 909 F. Supp. at 30 (finding "identification of a class that is sufficiently definite such that it would be administratively feasible to determine whether a particular person is a member of the class."). Once the existence of a class has been established, the Court does not consider the merits of plaintiffs' claims prior to proceeding to a determination of whether the requirements for class certification set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) and (b) have been met. Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that all four of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and one of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) have been satisfied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; see, e.g., Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521
U.S. 591, 613-14, 117 S. Ct. 2231 (1997); In re: Veneman, 309
17

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 18 of 39
F.3d 789, 792 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Bynum v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. 02-956, 2003 WL 21911342 at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2003); Lewis v. Nat'l Football League, 146 F.R.D. 5, 8 (D.D.C. 1992).
a) Rule 23(a)(1) - Numerosity It appears to be undisputed that the numerosity requirement set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) is met in this case: plaintiffs have alleged, and defendants do not dispute, that approximately 400 people were arrested in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002 under virtually identical circumstances. See Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 341, 347-48 (D.D.C. 1998)("Plaintiffs have provided the names of four hundred and one named plaintiffs who they claim fall within the class definition. That alone is sufficient to establish numerosity, especially when the class members are located in different states."); see also Coleman v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 196 F.R.D. 193, 198 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the numerosity requirement is satisfied where it is clear that joinder would be impracticable); Franklin v. Barry, 909 F. supp. at 30 (finding that a class of approximately 200 persons was "sufficiently large that it would be extremely difficult or inconvenient to join all the members of the class."); Lewis v. Nat'l Football League, 146 F.R.D. at 8-9 (finding numerosity requirement satisfied where approximately 250 players were members of the class and geographical dispersion of
18

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 19 of 39
potential class members rendered joinder "clearly impracticable.").
b) Rule 23 (a)(2) - Commonality This Court has previously observed that [t]he primary concern in assessing the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) is to ensure that "maintenance of a class action is economical and [that] the named plaintiff's claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence." "The commonality test is met where there is at least one issue, the resolution of which will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members." Keepseagle v. Veneman, Civ. A. No. 99-3119, mem. op. at 19 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001) (citations omitted). "Traditionally, commonality refers to the group characteristics of the class as a whole, while typicality refers to the individual characteristics of the named plaintiff in relation to the class." Jarvaise v. Rand Corporation, 212 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2002) (citation omitted). Federal defendants oppose class certification on the grounds that the alleged injuries of members of the putative class are too diverse. For instance, they contend that innocent bystanders cannot assert First Amendment claims because they were not present at Pershing Park for the purpose of expressing political views. Moreover, federal defendants suggest that members of the proposed class would include "violent and unlawful" demonstrators and persons who intended and desired to be arrested, as well as
19

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 20 of 39
bystanders and journalists, thereby leading to vastly different factual and legal assertions and arguments with respect to the existence of probable cause, as well as disparate damages should any constitutional violations be found to have occurred. According to federal defendants, because the circumstances surrounding each class member's arrest are inherently dependent on that particular individual's actions, a class action will degenerate into an individualized case-by-case analysis, thereby precluding findings of "commonality," "typicality" or "predominance."
The existence of factual distinctions between the claims of putative class members will not preclude a finding of commonality. See Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1279 n.14 (11th Cir. 2000); Bynum v. District of Columbia, 2003 WL 21911342 at *3 ("it is not necessary that every issue of law or fact be the same for each class member. Rather, factual variations among the class members will not defeat the commonality requirement, so long as a single aspect or feature of the claim is common to all proposed class members."); Franklin v. Barry, 909 F. Supp. at 3031 (holding that there need not be "commonality on each fact or every issue," and finding the commonality requirement met in a case brought by Hispanic prisoners in the D.C. correctional system who experienced varying conditions of confinement, had varying degrees of fluency with the English language, and
20

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 21 of 39
different medical histories); Lewis v. Nat'l Football League, 146
F.R.D. at 9 ("the presence of individual issues does not destroy
commonality. . . . particularly . . . when . . . common -– even
identical -– issues of liability are present."). Plaintiffs correctly point out that the case now before the
Court is virtually identical to that before the D.C. Circuit in
Dellums v. Powell, in which a class of persons subjected to mass
arrests on the steps of the Capitol in connection with a May 5,
1971 protest against the Vietnam war was certified. Dellums v.
Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In Dellums, as here,
plaintiffs asserted First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment
challenges to their arrests, as well as claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1981 et seq., and D.C. law. Id. at 173. The challenged police
practices in that case bore a striking resemblance to those
alleged in the case at bar: The group subsequently assembled on the East Steps of the Capitol on the House side and "began to make and listen to speeches concerning the People's Peace Treaty and related matters." While Congresswoman Abzug was addressing the crowd, at about 3:30 P.M., the police cordoned off the bottom of the steps, preventing anyone from leaving, and began arresting members of the assemblage. . . . The complaint further alleged that those arrested were held for periods of from several hours to several days without being afforded due process of law. In addition, conditions of detention were said to have been inhumane . . . [a]ccess to attorneys and telephones was said to have been denied or severely restricted.
Id. at 173-74. Based on these facts, the trial court certified as
a class "all persons who were arrested while assembled on the
21

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 22 of 39
Capitol steps on May 5, 1971." Id. at 174. In that case, as in this one, the "focal point of the action is the question whether the arresting officer was justified in ordering the arrest of the plaintiff" without a warrant, recognizing that an order and opportunity to disperse before arrest is a prerequisite to a finding that the arrests were justified. Id. at 175, 182.
Defendant in Dellums unsuccessfully challenged certification of the class on grounds similar to those advanced by defendants here, claiming that questions of fact or law common to the members of the class did not predominate. Id. at 189 n. 56. That argument was rejected by the trial court and dismissed by the D.C. Circuit, which noted that "the only question generally to be tried in a false arrest suit is whether the defendant police officer is entitled to qualified official immunity . . . The qualified official immunity issue would be tried by substantially the same evidence no matter who brought suit or whether suit was brought individually, by joined plaintiffs, or by a class." Id.
Plaintiffs also rely on Washington Mobilization Ctee. v. Cullinane, an action challenging similar mass arrest tactics employed by the MPD at several large demonstrations which took place at various locations in the District from 1969-1971, in which the D.C. District Court certified a class consisting of "all persons who have participated in or observed and who intend to participate in or observe lawful, peaceful, orderly and non-
22

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 23 of 39
obstructive public demonstrations for the exercise of their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly." Washington Mobilization Ctee. v. Cullinane, 400 F. 186, 219 n.2 (D.D.C. 1975), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 566 F.2d 107 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (class certification not disturbed on appeal); see also Sullivan v. Murphy, 380 F. Supp. 867, 868 (D.D.C. 1974) (reaffirming on remand certification of class of "all persons arrested from and including May 3, 1971, through May 6, 1971, as to whom the defendants failed to follow normal booking procedures and lack [] contemporary . . . evidence of probable cause for arrest and those as to whom . . . defendants have been unable . . . to certify to this Court their ability to establish probable cause for arrest or a prima facie case of guilt of the alleged offense committed."). Although defendants in Cullinane challenged certification of the class, the District Court found that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 were met by plaintiffs' complaint, notwithstanding the fact that its allegations spanned a period of years, and involved at least seven different demonstrations, at which the conduct of individual demonstrators varied widely, and at which the District Court acknowledged there was some unlawful activity on the part of individual demonstrators. See Washington Mobilization Ctee. v. Cullinane, 400 F. Supp. at 219 n.2.
Plaintiffs further argue that this case is distinguishable
23

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 24 of 39
from McCarthy v. Kleindienst, relied upon by federal defendants. In that case, the D.C. Circuit declined to find abuse of discretion or reversible error in the District Court's failure to certify a class of over 7000 persons who were arrested during the 1972 May Day demonstrations. The plaintiffs in McCarthy had delayed over three years before seeking class certification, and the trial court found lack of commonality based on the fact that plaintiffs were arrested in numerous locations in the District, and the duration and conditions of confinement varied greatly, depending on highly individualized facts. McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406, 1411, 1415 (D.C. Cir. 1984). As an initial matter, it goes without saying that failure to find abuse of discretion for denial of a motion for class certification differs significantly from a finding that it would be an abuse of discretion to have certified the class in question. See id. at 1415 n. 11 ("The need to defer to a district court's class certification decision has been greatly emphasized throughout this opinion. It is this factor that makes our decision in the present case entirely consistent with both Dellums v. Powell . . . and Sullivan v. Murphy, previous "May Day" cases in which this court upheld district court decisions to certify a class. . . .We are by no means holding today that it would have been error to certify a class in this case . . . .") (emphasis added).
Secondly, the Circuit in McCarthy noted that the putative
24

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 25 of 39
class in that case brought an action exclusively for damages, bringing the case within the reach of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and precluding a finding that common questions of law or fact "predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." Id. at 1411, 1413 n. 8 (noting that "the stakes in the present case are much different [than those in a case in which injunctive relief was granted to a class of plaintiffs with respect to the same arrests] given the claims for money damages"). Conversely, in the cases now before this Court, claims for injunctive relief predominate.
Furthermore, in McCarthy, the Circuit found that the District Court's determination that the motion for class certification in McCarthy was untimely, and thus would result in unwarranted further delay and "massive discovery" involving over 7000 plaintiffs was reasonable in light of the fact that plaintiffs moved for class certification over three years after the action was initiated. Id. at 1411. In the instant case, it is undisputed that Barham plaintiffs' motion for class certification was filed in a timely fashion. Moreover, when upholding the District Court's denial of class certification in McCarthy, the Circuit relied heavily on the potential problems of litigating plaintiffs' abuse of process claims as a class action, finding that since the existence of probable cause is not a defense to an abuse of process claim, even more individualized determinations
25

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 26 of 39
would be required to adjudicate those claims. Id. at 1414. No such claim is advanced in the Barham action. Finally, it is particularly noteworthy that the McCarthy court agreed that "the mere fact that damage awards will ultimately require individualized fact determinations is insufficient by itself to preclude class certification. . . . A district court, should, of course, ordinarily consider such well-established methods as bifurcating the trial into liability and damages phases before denying certification." Id. at 1415 (citing cases).
Plaintiffs correctly point out that in the cases now before this Court all of the arrests occurred at the same place and time, resulting from a single police action in which the putative class members were treated as a group by the defendants. Moreover, plaintiffs argue that neither the status of class members, be they journalists, protesters, or observers, nor the differences in the conditions or duration of confinement, are relevant to the predominant issue of liability for unlawful arrest, but rather would have an impact only on the amount of damages awarded. Furthermore, they submit that any such impact would not rise to a degree sufficient to destroy commonality and typicality. This conclusion is supported by the proceedings before the Dellums court: after the arrests challenged in Dellums were found to have violated the First and Fourth Amendments, a jury awarded damages against the D.C. Chief of Police for common
26

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 27 of 39
law false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, as well as for a Bivens claim based on First and Fourth Amendment violations. Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d at 175. Individual class members' damages for Fourth Amendment violations were based on the number of hours they were detained, whereas uniform compensatory damages were awarded for violations of First Amendment rights. Id.
Finally, plaintiffs submit that there is no evidence on the record to date supporting federal defendants' contention that some class members may have been engaged in violent or otherwise unlawful conduct. To the contrary, the D.C. government declined to prosecute all of the cases arising from the events of September 27, 2002 in Pershing Park. Similarly, in Dellums, no evidence ever surfaced, despite the government's allegations to the contrary, that individual arrestees engaged in misconduct justifying their arrest. See Dellums, 566 F.2d at 190. Furthermore, plaintiffs correctly contend that the existence of a defense based on individual misconduct for one or a few of the class members would not preclude class certification so long as common issues of fact and law predominate, particularly in light of the rules allowing for creation of sub-classes. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).
c) Rule 23(a)(3) - Typicality In its memorandum opinion in Keepseagle, the Court commented
27

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 28 of 39
that Typicality focuses on the similarity of the legal and remedial theories behind the claims of named representatives and those of the putative class. Plaintiffs satisfy typicality if "each class member’s claim arises from the same course of events that led to the claims of the representative parties and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant’s liability."
Keepseagle v. Veneman, Civil Action No. 99-3119, mem. op. at 22
(D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001) (citations omitted). In this case, plaintiffs correctly contend that the claims
of the named plaintiffs, all of whom were arrested in Pershing
Park on September 27, 2002 as part of a "mass arrest," and those
of potential class members, who are "all persons arrested at
Pershing Park in Washington, D.C. on the morning of September 27,
2002," are premised on the legality, vel non, of a "policy or
practice that is applied to all putative class members," thus
satisfying the typicality requirement. See Kifafi v. Hilton
Hotels Retirement Plan, 189 F.R.D. 174, 177 (D.D.C. 1999).
d) Rule 23(a)(4) - Fair and Adequate Representation Adequacy of representation refers to both legal counsel and class representatives. Thus, "the named representative must not have antagonistic or conflicting interests with the unnamed members of the class," and "the representative must appear able to vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel."
Keepseagle v. Veneman, Civil Action No. 99-3119, mem. op. at 19
(D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2001), citing Twelve John Does v. District of
Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 575 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Additionally, "a
finding that class counsel are adequate [is] an implicit
28

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 29 of 39
requirement of Rule 23(a)(4)." Lewis v. Nat'l Football League, 146 F.R.D. at 10, 11-12; see also Jarvaise v. Rand Corporation, 212 F.R.D. at 3. No serious challenge to adequacy of representation on the part of named plaintiffs or class counsel has been raised to date.
e) Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) Plaintiffs need only establish that their action meets one of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b); Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. at 614; Franklin v. Barry, 909 F. Supp. at 31. Plaintiffs in these cases allege that defendants "acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole," and satisfying the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d 87, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (describing declaratory and injunctive relief applicable to a class as a whole as the "defining characteristic" of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) class). As our Court of Appeals recently observed, certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) "is particularly well-suited for civil rights actions where 'a party is charged with discriminating unlawfully against a class.'" In re: Veneman, 309 F.3d at 792. The fact that plaintiffs assert claims for monetary
29

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 30 of 39
damages does not change this result, as those claims are
incidental to their requests for injunctive relief, rendering
certification pursuant to subsection (b)(2) appropriate. See
Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d at 92 ("Courts have generally
permitted (b)(2) classes to recover monetary relief in addition
to declaratory or injunctive relief, at least where the monetary
relief does not predominate."); Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d
1000, 1003 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1986).5
Accordingly, it seems that here, as in Lewis, "the
conclusion that the class action is superior cannot seriously be
questioned" given the number of potential class members, their
dispersal throughout the nation, the likelihood that each of the
potential class members would have to "conduct expensive,
extensive discovery" in order to establish municipal liability
for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the fact
that 400 separate trials for damages would "certainly be a waste
5 It appears that plaintiffs' class claims also satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A) because maintaining separate actions would "create a risk of inconsistent adjudications, thus establishing incompatible standards of conduct" for MPD officers. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A); Franklin v. Barry, 909 F. Supp. at 31. Alternatively, the proposed class seems to meet the requirements for certification pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B), given that separate actions by individual class members would "as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests" of non-party class members "or substantially impede their ability to protect their interests" because resolution of issues of probable cause and First Amendment rights in one case may have a preclusive effect on other class members' future claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B).
30

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 31 of 39
of judicial resources." See Lewis v. Nat'l Football League, 146 F.R.D. at 12. Additionally, absent class certification, "a significant number of individuals [would be] deprived of their day in court because they are otherwise unable to afford independent representation" given the relatively low monetary return on pressing their claims. See Jarvaise v. Rand Corporation, 212 F.R.D. at 4. Moreover, as the court in Dellums demonstrated, there exist efficient ways in which, assuming the arrests and detentions are found to be unlawful, disparities in conditions and length of detention among class members can be addressed at the damages stage without destroying the cohesiveness required for maintaining a class action. See Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 174 n. 6 (damages awarded by jury were $120 for 12 hours or less of detention; $360 for 12 to 24 hours of detention, $960 for 24 to 48 hours of detention, and $1,800 for 48 to 72 hours of detention).
As the D.C. Circuit stated in Dellums when addressing virtually identical facts, "[i]t is precisely this situation in which each class member would have to present the same case were he to proceed individually to which Rule 23(b)(3) is addressed since a class action would in such circumstances consolidate otherwise identical actions into a single efficient unit." Id. at 189 n. 56. Nevertheless, given that District defendants have not yet filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
31

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 32 of 39
certification in Barham, the Court will certify the class in that case on a provisional basis only, pending a motion for reconsideration, if any, by the District of Columbia. Although not required, this Circuit has held that District Courts have the discretion to grant opt-out rights in class actions certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) or (2). Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d at 94. However, before providing for notice and an opportunity to opt-out of the Barham class action, the Court will afford the District defendants an opportunity to seek reconsideration of its decision to certify the class. II. Individual actions
Counsel for plaintiffs in both cases filed on behalf of individuals only, Chang v. United States, Civil Action No. 022010, and Franklin Jones v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02-2310, have clearly indicated that their clients do not wish to join either of the proposed class actions. Accordingly, the plaintiffs in these two cases will be treated as if they have opted out of the provisionally certified class action in Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 02-2283.
Several considerations counsel in favor of consolidating the two actions brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs who do not wish to participate in the proposed class actions. Chang v. United States, Civil Action No. 02-2010, was brought by seven individual plaintiffs, all of whom are law and undergraduate
32

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 33 of 39
students at George Washington University. All plaintiffs were present at the events in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002, either in their capacities as legal observers for the National Lawyers' Guild or in their capacities as reporters for the GW student newspaper, "The Hatchet," and were caught up in the mass arrest. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief finding the MPD's alleged "trap and arrest" policy and procedures unconstitutional, and prohibiting the MPD from surrounding individuals, failing to give an order to disperse or depriving them of the ability to comply with any such order, and arresting any person caught within the surrounded area without regard to whether the individual has engaged in any illegal conduct. They also ask this Court to declare unconstitutional the use of excessive force to prevent individuals from leaving surrounded areas during the execution of the "trap and arrest" policy, as well as the MPD's alleged practices of handcuffing an individual's wrist to the opposite ankle and detaining them for 24 hours or more in that position, engaging in threatening and abusive conduct toward detainees, and denying detainees access to counsel following arrest pursuant to execution of the "trap and arrest" policy. Plaintiffs assert that the challenged practices violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as laws and policies governing the proper conditions of arrest, use of restraints, and processing of individuals in the custody of the MPD. Like
33

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 34 of 39
plaintiffs in Barham, Chang plaintiffs also name the federal government as a defendant on the theory that the U.S. Park Police participated in planning and executing the trap and arrest procedure which led to plaintiffs' alleged injuries.
Franklin Jones v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 022310, was commenced by three individual plaintiffs, all of whom were present at the Pershing Park demonstration on September 27, 2002 in their capacities as photojournalism students at the Corcoran College of Art and Design seeking field experience covering a major news event. All plaintiffs allege that they came to Freedom Plaza, took photographs, were subsequently informed, without further justification, that they were not permitted to leave the area, and were arrested and detained. They assert claims based on violations of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and of the press, as well their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Although they bring claims primarily against the District of Columbia, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, and MPD Chief Charles Ramsey in their official capacities, the Jones plaintiffs also name as defendants John/Jane Does who provided material assistance and participated in the constitutional violations alleged by plaintiffs, in their individual and/or official capacities. These individuals could conceivably include the
34

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 35 of 39
federal defendants named by plaintiffs in Chang as participants in the challenged practices. Discovery directed at ascertaining who these individuals might be would likely overlap with the discovery sought by the Chang plaintiffs with respect to their Bivens claims, as well as that regarding interagency cooperation and planning among federal and local law enforcement agencies prior to and on September 27, 2002. Furthermore, plaintiffs in both the Chang and Jones cases allege that their status as reporters and legal observers gives rise to particularized First Amendment violations. Accordingly, the Court finds that the cases share sufficient common issues of law and fact such that consolidation is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). III. Conclusion
Upon careful consideration of the pending motions for consolidation and class certification, the responses and replies thereto, the governing statutory and case law, and the entire record in the above-captioned cases, for the reasons stated herein, it is by the Court hereby
ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, District defendants' motion to consolidate Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 02-2283, and Abbate v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 03-767, is hereby DENIED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motion for class certification in Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 02-2283 is
35

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 36 of 39
hereby GRANTED. The Court provisionally certifies the following class for plaintiffs' class claims for declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2): all individuals who were arrested in Pershing Park in the District of Columbia on September 27, 2002; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the District of Columbia shall have until October 9, 2003 to file a motion for reconsideration of class certification in Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 022283. Any responses shall be filed by October 23, 2003, and any replies by November 6, 2003; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for class certification in Abbate v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 03-767 is hereby DENIED. Named plaintiffs in that case shall be treated as individual plaintiffs who have elected to opt out of the Barham v. Ramsey class action and pursue their claims on an individual basis; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Chang v. United States, Civil Action No. 02-2010, and Franklin Jones v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02-2310, are hereby CONSOLIDATED under Case No. 022010. All future pleadings in these cases shall be filed under the earlier case number; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs in Chang v. United States, Civil Action No. 02-2010, and Franklin Jones v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02-2310, are hereby directed to file a
36

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 37 of 39
global consolidated complaint in their consolidated case by no later than September 25, 2003; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in Chang v. United States, Civil Action No. 02-2010, and Franklin Jones v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02-2310, are hereby DENIED without prejudice; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file any potentially dispositive motions in the three remaining cases by no later than October 9, 2003; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file any responses to potentially dispositive motions by no later than October 23, 2003; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file replies in support of potentially dispositive motions by no later than November 6, 2003; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on pending motions is scheduled for December 11, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the letters to the Court from plaintiff's counsel in Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 02-2283, and Abbate v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 03-767, dated September 15, 2003 to preserve the record of these cases.
37

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 38 of 39

Signed:

EMMET G. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE September 19, 2003

38

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 56 Filed 09/24/03 Page 39 of 39
Notice to:
Jonathan Turley, Esquire 2000 H St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20052
Brian Charles Malone, Esquire Mooers & Associates 1730 M Street, N.W. Suite 905 Washington, DC 20036
Jarrett A. Williams, Esquire Joseph Edward Topmiller, Esquire Schuyler William Livingston, Jr., Esquire Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, MD 20004
Arthur Spitzer, Esquire ACLU National Capital Area 1400 20th St. N.W., Suite 119 Washington, D.C. 20036
Mara E. Verheyden-Hilliard, Esquire Carl L. Messineo, Esquire Zachary J. Wolfe, Esquire Partnership for Civil Justice 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20006
Daniel C. Schwartz, Esquire Vanessa Y. Chandler, Esquire Scott M. Badami, Esquire Bryan Cave, LLP 700 13th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
Laurie Weinstein, Esquire Marina Utgoff Braswell, Esquire Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th ST. N.W., 10th fl. Washington, D.C. 20530
Thomas L. Koger, Esquire Jacques P. Lerner, Esquire Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W., Sixth Floor Washington, DC 20001
39

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 59 Filed 10/03/03 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al. Plaintiffs

v.

Civil Action No. 02-CV-2283 (EGS)

CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al. Defendants

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
PlaintiffS respectfully submit the following as their second amended complaint in this
matter. The Second Amended Complaint consists of the First Amended Complaint, which is
incorporated by reference herein, with the following additions/modifications:
To the caption, add the following defendant:
Peter Newsham in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Assistant Chief of Police D.C. Metropolitan Police Department 300 Indiana Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
After paragraph 49, insert the following as paragraph 49.1
49.1 Defendant Assistant Chief PETER NEWSHAM, ESQ. is in charge ofthe Office of Professional Responsibility (aPR), an office which is described by the MPD as "the guardian of the Metropolitan Police Department's reputation." Assistant Chief NEWSHAM was physically present at the site of the mass arrests and political roundups and, in joint action with others, participated in the giving of the orders on the scene for officers to engage in the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct challenged herein. Mr. NEWSHAM is sued in both his official and individual capacity.

1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 59 Filed 10/03/03 Page 2 of 2

In the Prayerfor Relief modify existing paragraph J to read:

J.

Compensatory damages and punitive damages against Newsham, Ramsey, Williams, and

the unknown named police officers sued in their individual capacities for violations of

federal rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (if they are D.C. or state actors Or in joint

action with state or D.C. actors) or pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

the Federal Bureau ofNarcotics (if they are federal agents or in joint action with federal

agents) in an amount appropriate to the proof adduced at trial;

In the Prayerfor Relief add
O. Punitive damages against the District of Columbia, in light of these extraordinary circumstances, in which District of Columbia policymakers and high officers adopted, participated, authorized, approved and/or ratified the unconstitutional pol:icies that caused the damages in question.

Respectfully submitted,

...!sl Carl Messineo_ _ _ _ _ __
Carl Messineo (#450033) Mara Verheyden-Hilliard (#450031)
PARTNERSHIP FOR CML JUSTICE, INC. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
MASS DEFENSE COMMITTEE 1901 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Suite 607 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 530-5630
counselfor plaintifft

2

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 67 Filed 10/15/03 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

:

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

: Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)

:

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

:

MOTION OF DEFENDANTS CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY AND MAYOR ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants

Charles H. Ramsey, Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”), and Mayor Anthony

A. Williams, respectfully move this Court to enter an order dismissing the Complaint based upon

its failure to state a claim against them upon which relief can be granted or, in the alternative,

granting them summary judgment. The defendants move for the relief requested upon the

grounds that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as set forth in greater detail in the

accompanying memorandum of points and authorities filed contemporaneously with and

incorporated by reference into this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT J. SPAGNOLETTI Corporation Counsel

1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 67 Filed 10/15/03 Page 2 of 3
/s/ Robert C. Utiger ROBERT C. UTIGER [437130] Deputy Corporation Counsel Equity and Receivership Division /s/ Thomas L. Koger THOMAS L. KOGER [427921] Senior Litigation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W. Suite 6S060 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6623 (202) 727-3625 (FAX) Attorneys for Defendants Charles H. Ramsey and Anthony A. Williams
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 67 Filed 10/15/03 Page 3 of 3

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on the 15th day of October 2003, I caused a true copy of the foregoing MOTION OF DEFENDANTS CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY AND MAYOR ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT to be filed electronically with the Court for electronic service upon:
Carl Messineo, Esquire Mara E. Verheyden-Hillard, Esquire Zachary J. Wolfe Partnership for Civil Justice 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 607 Washington, DC 20006

Marina Utgoff Braswell Edith Marguerita Shine United States Attorney’s Office 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004

/s/ Thomas L. Koger THOMAS L. KOGER

3

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 79 Filed 11/24/03 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________

:

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

:

:

Plaintiffs

:

: Civ. Action No. 02-2010 (EGS)

v.

:

:

UNITED STATES, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

_________________________________________

:

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

: Civ. Action No. 02-02283 (EGS)

:

CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

_____ :

:

JULIE ABBATE, et al.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

: Civ. Action No. 03-00767 (EGS)

:

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

:

:

JOEL DIAMOND, et al.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

: Civ. Action No. 03-02005 (EGS)

:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

: Next court event: Status Conference

: November 25, 2003, at 10:00 a.m.

Defendants.

:

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 79 Filed 11/24/03 Page 2 of 4
MOTION OF DEFENDANTS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, AND MAYOR ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS,
FOR CONSOLIDATION OF RELATED CASES Defendants in the four above-captioned related cases, District of Columbia (the “District”), Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) Chief Charles H. Ramsey, and Mayor Anthony A. Williams, collectively, the (“District Defendants”) respectfully move the Court for an order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 1, 16, 23, 26, and 42, (1) consolidating these cases for purposes of discovery and (2) consolidating these cases for purposes of trial, or, in the alternative, restricting the number of cases through which plaintiffs may pursue permanent injunctive relief against the defendants. The relief requested is consistent with this Court’s recognition of the merits of consolidation in the litigation of these cases in its Memorandum Decision and Order, dated September 19, 2003. Further, the requested relief is suited to achieving the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of these cases as mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These reasons are explained in greater detail in the accompanying, supporting memorandum of points and authorities, which is incorporated into this motion by reference. Pursuant to LCvR 7.1(m), undersigned counsel communicated the District Defendants’ request for relief sought through this motion with counsel for each of the other parties. MPD Assistant Chief Peter Newsham does not oppose the consolidation of these cases for purposes of discovery and trial, but does not waive any jurisdictional challenges or defenses available to him. The Jones plaintiffs do not oppose the relief requested. Oppositions to the motion are anticipated
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 79 Filed 11/24/03 Page 3 of 4
from the Federal Defendants, the Chang plaintiffs, the Abbate plaintiffs and the Barham plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted, ROBERT J. SPAGNOLETTI Corporation Counsel, D.C. /s/ Robert C. Utiger______ ROBERT C. UTIGER (437130) Deputy Corporation Counsel Equity Division /s/ Thomas L. Koger________ THOMAS L. KOGER (427921) Senior Litigation Counsel 441-4th St., N.W., Sixth Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 442-9779 Attorneys for District Defendants
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 79 Filed 11/24/03 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 24th day of November 2003, true copies of the foregoing MOTION OF DEFENDANTS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, AND MAYOR ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, FOR CONSOLIDATION OF RELATED and the accompanying supporting memorandum of points and authorities and proposed Order, and accompanying memorandum of points and authorities were filed electronically with the Court for ECF service upon:

Daniel C. Schwartz, Esq.
Scott M. Badami, Esq.
Bryan Cave LLP 700-13th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Jarrett A. Williams, Esquire COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004-2401

Brian C. Malone, Esq.

Carl Messineo, Esquire

2410 N. Washington Blvd.

Mara E. Verheyden-Hillard, Esquire

Arlington, VA 22201

Partnership for Civil Justice

1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Laurie Weinstein

Suite 607

Marina Utgoff Braswell

Washington, DC 20006

Edith Shine

Assistant United States Attorneys

Office of the United States Attorney 555-4th St., N.W., 10th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20530

Arthur B. Spitzer
AMER ICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF THE CAPITAL AREA 1400 20th Street, N.W. #119
Washington, D.C. 20036

Daniel M. Schember, Esquire Susan B. Dunham, Esquire D.C. Chapter, National Lawyers Guild 666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Ste. 225 Washington, D.C. 20009

/s/ Thomas L. Koger________ THOMAS L. KOGER

4

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 80 Filed 11/25/03 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

______________________________

)

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

Civ. Action No. 02-2010 (EGS) Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)

______________________________

)

FRANKLIN JONES, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

Civ. Action No. 02-2310 (EGS)

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 80 Filed 11/25/03 Page 2 of 4

______________________________

)

JULIE ABBATE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

)

)

JOEL DIAMOND, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

Civ. Action No. 03-767 (EGS) Civ. Action No. 03-2005(EGS)

ORDER Pursuant to the status conference held on November 25,

2003, and for the reasons given in open court, it is hereby

ORDERED that all pending motions filed prior to the

September 24, 2003, Order on consolidation and class

certification are DENIED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that all pending dispositive motions are

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 80 Filed 11/25/03 Page 3 of 4
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions for discovery, motions for consolidation for purposes of discovery and trial, the Chang plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply, and motions for extension of time are DENIED AS MOOT; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that all Defendants shall file responsive pleadings by no later than December 9, 2003; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that discovery shall commence on December 9, 2003, and conclude by no later than June 30, 2004; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that discovery shall not be duplicative, and that each party shall provide prior notice to all other parties as to any planned discovery; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that discovery conducted in any one of these cases may be used by the parties in all or any of these cases; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that these cases are referred to Magistrate Judge Kay for the purpose of resolving discovery disputes; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties submit a proposed order concerning a stay of discovery as to the defendants invoking qualified immunity defenses by no later than December 5, 2003;
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 80 Filed 11/25/03 Page 4 of 4

and it is FURTHER ORDERED that, upon representations of counsel that a
settlement has been reached, Jones v. District of Columbia, et al., 02-2310, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and removed from the active calendar of the Court; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the previously scheduled February 11, 2004, motions hearing will address only the pending motions pertaining to qualified immunity; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that a status hearing is scheduled in all cases for April 6, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court provide the Honorable Alan Kay with a copy of this order.

Signed:

EMMET G. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE November 25, 2003

4

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 165 Filed 09/24/04 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

JULIE ABBATE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS) Civ. Action No. 03-767 (EGS)

ORDER For all the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion entered this same day, it is by the Court hereby ORDERED that Defendant Newsham’s Motion to Dismiss as it Pertains to Him or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment in Civil Action 02-2283 is DENIED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Williams’s and Ramsey’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims Pertaining to Qualified Immunity in Civil Action 02-2283 is GRANTED as to Defendant Williams and GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as to Defendant Ramsey; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Newsham’s Motion to Dismiss
1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 165 Filed 09/24/04 Page 2 of 2 the Complaint or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment in Civil Action 03-767 is DENIED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ramsey’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pertaining to Qualified Immunity Issues in Civil Action 03-767 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Signed: EMMET G. SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE September 24, 2004
2

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 168 Filed 09/29/04 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)

ORDER

Upon consideration of plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary

Injunction, which requests that the District of Columbia be

enjoined from arresting demonstrators for “parading without a

permit” in the absence of any notice or opportunity to disperse,

and Defendant’s recent representations in open court that the

District will give notice and opportunity before making such

arrests, it is by the Court hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

Enjoining the District of Columbia From Arresting or Prosecuting

Persons for Parading Without a Permit is DENIED AS MOOT.

Signed:

EMMET G. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE September 29, 2004

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 185 Filed 02/01/05 Page 1 of 1
~ttitW ~ta:h5 aInuri nf J\pp:ea15
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 04-5388

September Term, 2004

02cv02283 03cv00767

Jeffrey Barham, et a/., Appellees

Filed On:

v.
Charles H. Ramsey, In his individual capacity and in . his official capacity 13s Chief of Police, MPD,
Appellant

I
r UNITElJS1ATESCOtII'lfOl'"iliPPEAtS . I FOR DiSTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
I . I . . .. I
FIlED! JAN 8 1 2005

District of Columbia, et a/., Appellees

CLERK

<', '.
Consolidated with 04-5389,04-7175, 04-7176, 04-7190

ORDER
Upon consideration. of the joint stipulation for dismissal of appeal nos. 04-7175, 04-7176, and 04-7190, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk note on the docket that case nos. 04-7175, 04-7176, and 04-7190 are dismissed. No mandate will be issued.

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk
8Y:~~
Deputy Clerk

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 112 Filed 03/18/04 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, ET AL. Plaintiffs

v.

: Civil Action No. 02-CV-2283 (EGS)

CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ET AL. Defendants

PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENT REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF GROH V. RAMIREZ, 540 U.S. _ (2004) TO THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS BASED ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
On February 24,2004,1 the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Groh v. Ramirez,
540 U.S. __ (2004), No. 02-811 (February 24,2004), which addressed the issue of whether an
officer is entitled to qualified immunity for an unconstitutional search that was, without dispute,
conducted with restraint and in good faith, where there was probable cause for a search warrant
to issue, and on the basis of a warrant with a clerical error on its face that was not known to, or
relied upon, by the responsible officer.
The Supreme Court entertained and rejected argument that the failure to afford Groh with
qualified immunity for his constitutionally unlawful search would create a constitutional
1In response to inquiry from plaintiffs' counsel, counsel for the defendants have represented that they do not intend to initiate a supplement regarding the applicability of Groh v. Ramirez and prefer, instead, to file a response or responses to any supplement filed by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have no objection to the defendants' filing of such responses on any timetable that is acceptable to the defendants and the Court.
1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 112 Filed 03/18/04 Page 2 of 11
violation out of a purported clerical error, would impose "new" and "novel" obligations upon law enforcement, would penalize actions taken in good faith, or would hamper or impede law enforcement.
The Groh Court ruled that qualified immunity did not protect Officer Groh from being held financially liable on an individual basis. The Court reiterated the standards respecting the limitations of the qualified immunity defense, and recognized the existing rule of law that requires law enforcement and government officials to ensure that their responsibilities are conducted in conformity with clearly established constitutional rights.
While Groh arises in the context of an unconstitutional search and (potential) seizure of property, its approach with respect to qualified immunity is no less applicable in the circumstances present in Barham which implicate hundreds of unconstitutional searches and seizures of persons. In the Barham case, the facts are even more difficult for the individual defendants, as there was not a single warrant (defective or otherwise) that issued or on which they relied as the basis for any of the hundreds of false arrests they made on September 27, 2002.
The Facts of Groh JeffGroh, a veteran officer, was a special agent for the Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. On the basis of a citizen report there existed probable cause to believe that on Joseph Ramirez's ranch there was located an unlawful stock of weapons, including an automatic rifle, grenades, and a grenade and rocket launcher. Groh, slip op. at 1 -2. Groh prepared and executed a detailed application for a search warrant, which described in particularity the items which were to be searched for. Id. The application was supported with a detailed affidavit setting forth the basis for probable cause. Id.
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 112 Filed 03/18/04 Page 3 of 11
A Magistrate Judge reviewed the application, found that the affidavit established probable cause to believe that contraband was concealed on the premises and that sufficient grounds existed for the issuance of a search warrant. Id. at 2-3.
The Court therefore issued the search warrant. Groh led the team that executed the search warrant. According to the Supreme Court, Groh "acted with restraint in conducting the search." Id. at 9. He also presented a copy ofthe search warrant to Mrs. Ramirez and, upon request the following day, faxed to Ramirez' counsel a copy ofthe page ofthe application that listed with particularity the items to be seized. Id. at 3. The warrant, however, was thereafter discovered to be constitutionally deficient because, even though Groh identified with particularity the items to be searched for in both the affidavit and the accompanying application, when he typed up the warrant and offered it to the Magistrate, he accidentally entered a description of the property to be searched in the part of the warrant form that called for a description of the property to be seized. Id. at 2 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
Applicability of Groh to Barham No property was seized during the search. Nevertheless, the Ramirez family sued Officer Groh alleging that there had been a violation oftheir Fourth Amendment rights because ofthe unlawful search. The Supreme Court rejected Groh's claims of qualified immunity, reaffirming the duty of government agents - subject to the pain of individual financial liability upon failure - to "make sure" that their conduct abides by constitutional requirements. Groh, slip op. at 11, n.6. Groh contended that the deficiencies in the warrant were mere clerical errors, id. at 4, that Groh acted in good faith and that the deficiency in the warrant was the product, at worst, of a
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 112 Filed 03/18/04 Page 4 of 11
lack of due care, Id. at 13. He submitted that his actions - albeit constitutionally faulty - were consequently protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Groh argued that to not immunize his unconstitutional conduct would create novel and new obligations upon government. Groh, slip op. at 11, n.6 . These claims echo some ofthe contentions raised by the District of Columbia, the MPD and their decision and policy makers.
The evident fallacy in such arguments is that there is no societal interest in immunizing violations of clearly established constitutional rights. These arguments were rejected outright by the Supreme Court.
"[Groh] mischaracterizes the [lower court's] decision [rejecting qualified immunity] when he contends that it imposed a novel proofreading requirement on officers executing warrants. The court held that officers leading a search team must'Mak[e] sure that they have a proper warrant that in fact authorizes the search and seizure they are about to conduct." That is not a duty to proofread; it is, rather, a duty to ensure that the warrant conforms to constitutional requirements." Groh, slip op. at 11, n. 6 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Likewise, the Barham plaintiffs seek to impose no greater obligation upon the involved command and policy officials to make sure- - before they surround and arrest hundreds of political dissenters and onlookers - - that they are not violating those persons' constitutional rights and, in the case of the Mayor, to make sure that he is not ratifying, participating in, or continuing unconstitutional police misconduct. The Groh Court found that, given the availability of the relevant information (i.e., the face of the warrant itself), it was objectively unreasonable for Groh to have carried out the search. "No reasonable officer could claim to be unaware of the basic rule, well established by our cases, that, absent consent or exigency, a warrantless search of the home is presumptively
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 112 Filed 03/18/04 Page 5 of 11
unconstitutional." Groh at 13, citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586-588. In the Barham case, it is also fair to state that the unconstitutionality of warrantless arrests in the absent ofprobable cause is equally well established. See, ~ Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir.1977).
The Groh Court further took into consideration that internal police guidelines placed Groh on notice that he might be liable for executing a manifestly invalid warrant. Groh, slip op. at 12. The existence of such policies is not a matter of constitutional magnitude, standing alone, but serves to underscore that, especially given such notice, it is not offensive either to constitutional norms or sensibilities about fairness to impose financial liability.
In Barham, internal MPD training and guidelines likewise place officers on notice as to the exacting procedures and standards to be followed in the conduct of mass arrests of political assemblages, see, ~, MPD Manual for Mass Demonstrations and Responding to Civil Disturbances, and on notice that officers or officials may liability in connection with an unlawful arrest in the absence of probable cause.2
The Groh Court took into consideration, and rejected, the argument that immunity was necessary to avoid impeding effective law enforcement. The Court expressly considered the argument that the difficulty and importance of a law enforcement agent's duty, and the "heat of
2 Plaintiffs have not yet received documentary production from the District. Plaintiffs possess portions of the MPD training material for use of force, which provides that "Liability of law enforcement officers, civil and criminal, may at anytime throughout an officer's career be an issue of concern." MPD training does not restrict itself to merely the liability that may attach for directly engaging in unconstitutional violations, but even places officers on notice that derivative or bystander liability may attach for failing to prevent another officer's unconstitutional conduct. A specifically identified constitutional violation in this training is "Unlawful arrest - when there is no probable cause." See attached excepts, MPD Lesson Plan for Use of Force, September 14, 2000.
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 112 Filed 03/18/04 Page 6 of 11
an ongoing and often dangerous" situation might justify sufficient latitude to afford the officer immunity for his constitutional violations. Groh, slip op. at 14, n.9. Noting the absence of exigency under the facts of Groh, the Supreme Court found that "This is not the situation, therefore, in which we have recognized that 'officers in the dangerous and difficult process of making arrests and executing search warrants require 'some latitude.'" Groh at 14, n.9, citing, Maryland v. Garrison, 480 u.S. 79, 87 (1987); See also Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 86 n.11 (1987), quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 167 (1940) ("[acceptable] mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting of facts leading sensibly to their conclusion of probability").
For the reasons asserted in plaintiffs' opposition, it was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances of the Barham case, for the defendants to have acted as they did based on the information then reported and observed.
As Groh reflects, and as should be applied in Barham, where an official fails to abide by (or, as in the Barham case, acts in defiance of) clearly established constitutional requirements protecting the civil rights of the public, that official cannot seek refuge from accountability by successfully invoking qualified immunity for such misconduct.
Under the facts of Barham, the defendants could not have maintained an objectively reasonable belief that there existed probable cause to mass arrest as a group the hundreds of political dissenters, onlookers and bystanders as was intentionally committed on September 27, 2002.
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 112 Filed 03/18/04 Page 7 of 11

March 18, 2004

Respectfully submitted,
Carl Messineo (# 450033) Mara Verheyden-Hilliard (# 430031) PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE, INC. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
MASS DEFENSE COMMITTEE 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 607 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 530-5630 (202) 530-5634 -facsimile
Counselfor Plaintifft

7

(,j

.. :~;..~! .
Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 112

Filed 03/18/04 Page 8 of 11

'.

~ ",

.. -

-. - -·:--":"'-7·::·'~:':'_'_r-.~:-_·-:-:-:-.-:"7··.:~ .- ..

Metropolitan Police Department Maurice T. Turner, Jr.
Institute of Police Science

LESSON PLAN

SUBJECT:

Use of Force / Use of Force Model

PROGRAM:

Recruit / Lateral and In-Service

TIME:

Two Hours

PREPARED BY:

Lieutenant David K. Kamperin

DATE PREPARED:

September 14., 2000

:METHOD OF INSTRUCTION: Lecture and Practical

TRAINING AIDS:

Transparency/Overheads and PowerPoint

EQUlPl\1ENT:

Lap top computerlln-Focus

STUDENT HANDOUTS:

Quiz and Use of Force Handbook

SKILLS LAB:

Pra.ctical Knowledge Exercise

SCOPE OF INSTRUCTION:

The scope ofthis level is to educate members of the Metropolitan Police Department in
the laws, policies and procedures relative to the proper use of force and the Use ofForce Model. This will enhance the understanding offorce options and legal.consequences that members ofthe Metropolitan Police Department will be held responsible for.

INSTRUCfIONAL OBJECfIVES:

At the conclusion ofthis block of instruction, the members will be familiar with and have
a practical understanding ofthe laws, policies and procedures relative to the use of force and the Use ofForce Model
•

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 112 Filed 03/18/04 Page 9 of 11

Time (Elapsed) Actual

Use of Force / Use of Force Model 3. Survival Shadow

.
Instructor's Notes

The officer assessment and selection arrows are bordered with a red line to indicate that the officer is in a high-risk occupation. The officer must __CQDstantl-y be remind~~tthatimminent danger causing death and/or serious bodily injury may occur at any time.

IV. Bystander Liability

Liability of law enforcement officers, civil and criminal, may at anytime throughout an officer's career be an issue of concern. One type of liability is what is called "bystander liability."

An officer may be held civilly or criminally liable for standing by and failing to intervene in a violation ofclearly established constitutional rights.

1. Defmed

Civil or criminal liability which falls upon the law enforcement officer who knowingly witnesses or has knowledge ofa clear violation of constitutional rights but fails to intervene to stop it.

2. Types of Constitutional Rights Violations

a. Compelled Confession-the use of force to extract a confession.
b. Warrantless Search-when the officer know or should have known a warrant is required.
c. Unlawful Arrest-when there is no probable cause
d. Excessive use of force:the officer knows or should have known there is no necessity for the level of force used.

«<Standard»> objective reasonableness

-.:.,.
000052

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 112 Filed 03/18/04 Page 10 of 11

Time (Elapsed) Use of Force I Use of Force Model Actual
. Any of the above examples may result in civil or criminal liability, even ifyou the officer did not physically participate, but stood by and did nothing to stop the clear violation ofa conStitutional right.
- - - - L.. LegacTheo~ry""'------

Instructor's Notes

The main legal theory of bystander liability are conspiracy and duty, including the duty to keep a person in custody free from harm.

a Conspiracy
-CoUris- h~ve ~e(r acqUie~ceiice:ean'amount to a
conspiracy agreement when one officer watches as an open breach ofthe law exists and does nothing to seek its prevention.
h. Duty
There is a duty borne by police associated with the protection of constitutional rights, which is well established in case law.
3. Court Decisions

DUTY-
Recognized during t/h.e 1950s
and 19608 desegregation cases-14th Amenc4nent requires public officials to exercise their dutY to preserve law and order and to provide for the personal safety ofindividuals.

Byrd v. Brishkie, 446 F. 2d (1972)

A police officer who to intervene to prevent a constitutional violation by other police officers may also be personally liable for civil damages. The court held that both supervisory and non- 4 supervisory officers who were present during the unconstitutional acts could be held liable.

U.S. v. Reese, 2F. 3d 870 (1993)

The Ninth Circuit held that a police sergeant who stood by and failed to prevent other officers from

".:.
000053

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 112 Filed 03/18/04 Page 11 of 11

Time (Elapsed) Actual

Use of Force I Use of Force Model
beating suspects may be convicted of criminal civil rights violations.

U.S. v. Koon 34 F. 3d 1416 (1994)

As a result ofthe Rodney King incident the court said, ..~'... a person in official custody has a right to be free from hann inflicted by a third person, and...an official who willfully subjects a custodial subject to a deprivation ofthat right is subject to criminal liability."

Instructor's Notes
Note: Here the court is saying the official willfully allowed or pennitted, rather than merely standing by...

Police officers have a duty to intercede when their fellow officers violate the constitutional
rights ofa suspect or other citizen.s..
." .......--- ..
Courts have recognized that intervening to stop the constitutional violation may be a defense to both civil and criminal liability ifa realistic opportunity to prevent the violation exists.

How important is the "code ofsilence"-is it worth the loss ofyourjob, possessions, family, andlor freedom?

V ReEorting Requirements - _._.-.'

Any member who uses a force option above the Any level where force is used

level ofcontact controls shalf report the incident that causes pain, injury or

to his I her supervisor. Additionally, members

death to the subject. This

shall report the incident and the circumstances

includes force levels within

surrounding the use of force on the Use ofForce the Compliance Techniques,

Incident Report.

Defensive Tactics, and

Deadly Force. It includes,

Members shall ensure that proper medical

among other things - OC

.attention is rendered to the subject as soon a

Spray, Personal Weapons

possible when force is used that causes an injury, or in the case of OC Spray when flushing the

•

(hands, feet, etc) Impact Weapons, K-9, Fireann.

affected area with water does not relieve the

subject.

\.

...

"-
000054

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 171 Filed 10/22/04 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et aI.,
Defendants.

Civ. Action No. 02-02283 (EGS) (AK)

DEFENDANT CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY'S FILING CONCERNING THE RECORD ON HIS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION REGARDING ARRESTS AT VERMONT AND K STREETS Defendant, Chief Charles H. Ramsey, respectfully submits this filing concerning the record upon which his Motion For Summary Judgment Upon Claims Subject To Qualified Immunity ("Motion") was based and argued. Chief Ramsey, through his counsel, has reviewed this Court's Memorandum Decision, dated September 24,2004, granting, in part, and denying, in part, Chief Ramsey's Motion and the transcript ofthe oral argument regarding that Motion heard by this Court on June 14,2004. Chief Ramsey has determined that some statements of his counsel at that hearing were less than models of clarity. The Court's September 24, 2004 Memorandum Decision reflects, at 38, that this Court credited the representations of Chief Ramsey's counsel concerning Chief Ramsey's involvement in arrests made at Vermont and K 'Streets, N.W., on September 27,2002, in granting Chief Ramsey qualified immunity regarding those arrests. Chief Ramsey believes that the Court properly decided that issue. However, in his view, the record of the oral argument is sufficiently ambiguous that his counsel's representations may have been understood to assert facts other than

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 171 Filed 10/22/04 Page 2 of 3
those Chief Ramsey understands to be accurate. Accordingly, Chief Ramsey submits this filing in order that this Court's decision not be based upon an ambiguity, misunderstanding, or miscommunication. In doing so, Chief Ramsey understands that this filing may cause the Court to review or reconsider, sua sponte, its own ruling regarding his entitlement to qualified immunity for the Vermont and K Streets arrests.
In granting Chief Ramsey qualified immunity regarding the arrests made at Vermont and K Streets, N.W., the Court made the following observation:
Simply stated, there is no record evidence that Chief Ramsey was on the scene of Vermont and K Streets at the time of the arrest, and the Court accepts Chief Ramsey's assertion through counsel, that Chief Ramsey was not present. Tr. 4/6/04 at 39. Further, unlike the arrests in Pershing Park, there is no record evidence suggesting that Chief Ramsey in any way approved the Vermont and K Streets arrests. Given that Chief Ramsey did not actively participate in the arrests, he could only be held personally liable on a theory of failure to supervise Assistant Chief Jordan. As discussed, supra, however, a "supervisor who merely fails to detect and prevent a subordinate's misconduct ... cannot be liable for that misconduct." International Action Center, 365 F.3d at 28. Memorandum Decision at 37-38. Chief Ramsey understands the Court's analysis to be based, in part, upon the representations of his counsel to the Court, as reflected at pages 38-43. Fair readings of the transcript and the Memorandum Decision permit the inference that the record reflected and the Court understood that Chief Ramsey was not present at Vermont and K Streets at any point related to the arrests there. That would not be correct. As reflected in the transcript, at 41 : 4-6, Chief Ramsey went from point to point throughout the District on the morning of September 27, 2002, and did make observations and did have conversations at various locations. Chief Ramsey recalls having briefly been at Vermont and K Streets, that morning. However, he has no
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 171 Filed 10/22/04 Page 3 of 3
recollection of having had any conversation with Assistant Chief Jordan at that location or of observing arrests there. Chief Jordan has no recollection of having seen Chief Ramsey at Vermont and K Streets that morning, much less consulting with Chief Ramsey, at all, regarding Chief Jordan's decision to make the arrests at Vermont and K Streets. This is wholly consistent with the declaration of Assistant Chief Jordan submitted in support of the Motion. Further, this is entirely consistent with the Court's findings of "no record evidence suggesting that Chief Rarnsey in any way approved the Vermont and K arrests," or that Chief Rarnsey actively participated in any way in those arrests. See Memorandum Decision at 38.
Respectfully submitted, ROBERT J. SPAGNOLETTI Attorney General for the District of Columbia GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division
R [427921] Senior Assistant Attorney General Equity Section I 441 Fourth Street, NW, Sixth Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6610
3

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 1 of 53

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

JULIE ABBATE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS) Civ. Action No. 03-767 (EGS)

MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION
These related cases arise from events on September 27, 2002, when approximately 3000 to 5000 people joined in demonstrations in the District of Columbia protesting the policies of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”), and the United States government. Plaintiffs in Civil Action 02-2283 (“Barham plaintiffs”) and Civil Action 03-767 (“Abbate plaintiffs”) were among the approximately 400 people arrested at or near a demonstration taking place in General John Pershing Park ("Pershing Park"), located on Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. between
1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 2 of 53
14th and 15th Streets N.W.. Plaintiffs allege that their arrests and subsequent detentions violate clearly established constitutional rights, including the right to “be free from the unreasonable seizure of one’s person and to be free from government disruption of, interference with, or retaliation for, engagement in free speech, assembly, petition and free press activities.” Pls.’ Opp. to Ramsey and Williams Mot. to Dismiss in 02-2283 at 7; Pls.’ Opp. to Newsham Mot. to Dismiss in 02-2283 at 4; Am. Compl. in 03-767 ¶ 4 (stating that plaintiffs “bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the common law to vindicate their civil rights, including the right to be free from the unreasonable seizure of their persons or deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law and to exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly”). Plaintiffs pursue these claims against various named and unnamed District of Columbia and United States officials in both their individual and official capacities.1 Three of the named
1 The Abbate plaintiffs name Chief of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) Charles H. Ramsey, Assistant Chief of the MPD Peter J. Newsham, and the District of Columbia as defendants. The Barham plaintiffs name Chief Ramsey, Assistant Chief Newsham, District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams, the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, Attorney General John Ashcroft, the United States of America, and unidentified officers, supervisors and law enforcement agencies as defendants.
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 3 of 53
defendants, Chief of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) Charles H. Ramsey, Assistant Chief of the MPD Peter J. Newsham, and Mayor of the District of Columbia Anthony Williams, assert that they enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability, and move the Court to dismiss the claims as they pertain to defendants personally.
Pending before the Court in Civil Action 02-2283 are Defendant Newsham’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, and Defendants Williams’s and Ramsey’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims Pertaining to Qualified Immunity. Pending before the Court in Civil Action 03-767 are Defendant Newsham’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment and Defendant Ramsey’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pertaining to Qualified Immunity Issues. Upon careful consideration of the motions, the responses and replies thereto, all supplemental briefing, the extensive oral arguments of counsel, as well as the governing statutory and case law, and for the following reasons, it is by the Court hereby ordered that Defendant Newsham’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment in Civil Action 02-2283 is DENIED; Defendants Williams’s and Ramsey’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims Pertaining to Qualified Immunity in Civil Action 02-2283 is GRANTED as to Defendant Williams and GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 4 of 53
IN PART as to Defendant Ramsey; Defendant Newsham’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment in Civil Action 03-767 is DENIED; and Defendant Ramsey’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pertaining to Qualified Immunity Issues in Civil Action 03-767 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The IMF and World Bank annually conduct meetings in
Washington D.C; these meetings historically draw small, peaceful protests. Over the past several years, however, the protests have grown in size, as has the number of protest-related arrests. Over an eight-day period in April 2000, more than 1000 people were arrested in Washington D.C. during protests related to the 2000 IMF/World Bank Meetings. Protests in 2001 were minimal, and no arrests were made, as the meetings were canceled following the events of September 11, 2001.
The MPD believed that the 2002 meetings were likely to draw large, potentially violent and destructive protests, largely because recent anti-globalization protests in Seattle had seen acts of violence and breaches of the peace. See Newsham Mot. to Dismiss in 02-2283 at 5. Prior to the scheduled September 2002 Meetings, the MPD Civil Disturbance Unit (“CDU”) members received training in preparation for the expected protests. Chief Ramsey
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 5 of 53
was in overall command of MPD’s operation plan and handling of the expected parades and demonstrations. Four Assistant Chiefs were charged with responsibility for specific areas of the city; Assistant Chief Newsham was responsible for the zone encompassing Pershing Park. In addition, MPD developed “post and forfeit” and “citation release” options for people arrested for misdemeanors; these procedures would allow arrestees to post and forfeit collateral and then be released without having to await arraignment in detention. The plan allowed for arrestees to be processed at three centers within the District. Ramsey and Williams Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶¶ 42-45; Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 03-767 ¶¶ 42-45.
On the day of the protests, Chief Ramsey heard via police radio that “significant activity” was taking place in Pershing Park, and thus proceeded to Pershing Park. When he arrived, Assistant Chief Newsham advised him that the people in Pershing Park would be arrested based on his personal observation and reports from MPD subordinates that the people in the Park had engaged in unlawful acts prior to congregating in the Park, including refusing MPD officers’ commands to move from the roadway, and knocking over trash receptacles and newspaper vending machines. Williams and Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶ 32; Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 03-
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 6 of 53
767 ¶ 32. Assistant Chief Newsham asserts that he walked around the perimeter of the park for 45 minutes, and observed that some protestors were wearing masks and taunting police officers. Newsham Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶¶ 46-47; Newsham Statement of Material Facts in 03-767 ¶¶ 46-47. Assistant Chief Newsham gave the order for the mass arrest, “correctly believing that, based on what he advised Chief Ramsey in their conversation, Chief Ramsey tacitly approved . . . Newsham’s decision.” Williams and Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶ 38; see also Newsham Statement of Material Facts in 03767 ¶ 49.
As admitted during oral argument at the April 6, 2004, Motions Hearing, it is undisputed that Assistant Chief Newsham did not give an order to disperse prior to effectuating the mass arrest. April 6, 2004, Motions Hearing Transcript (“Tr.”) at 6 (defense counsel for Ramsey and Williams confirming that no notice to disperse was given); see also Newsham Statement of Material Facts in 03-767 ¶ 54 (stating “Assistant Chief Newsham did not give orders for the demonstrators to clear the Park”). The Park was cordoned off on all sides by 10:15 a.m., and all of the people in the Park were arrested. Newsham Statement of Material Facts in 03-767 ¶ 53.
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 7 of 53
On the same day, a large number of people were also arrested at or near Vermont Avenue and K Street, N.W.. Assistant Chief Brian Jordan, who was responsible for the area during the protests, ordered a mass arrest. Williams and Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶ 53. Assistant Chief Jordan asserts that, after observing protestors “ignoring vehicular traffic,” he determined that “in order to ensure the public’s safety, the only recourse was to effect the arrests of all protestors who were marching illegally.” Jordan Decl. ¶¶ 4,5.
It is undisputed that, despite the planned availability of expedited citation release, there were lengthy delays in prisoner processing. MPD attributes these delays to information technology malfunctions and operational adjustments, including the Information Technology (“IT”) system falling non-operational until the evening of September 27, 2002; incompatibility problems with cameras used to photograph arrestees and computer software; and previously scheduled deactivation of the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS). Williams and Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶¶ 46-50; Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 03-767 ¶¶ 46-50. While in transit and while being held, arrestees were restrained by “flexi-cuffs,” which are “plastic bands that operate much like small belts.” Williams and Ramsey Statement of Material Facts
7

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 8 of 53
in 02-2283 ¶¶ 55-57. Some arrestees, specifically the 200 arrestees who were detained at the MPD’s Institute for Police Science gymnasium (“IPS”), were restrained by a series of three flexi-cuffs, which attached an individual’s wrist to her opposite ankle and left the arrestee in a seated position. Williams and Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶ 50.
MPD After-Action Reports concluded that there were “deficiencies in the Department’s handling of aspects of the September 27, 2002 events.” Id. ¶ 58. The MPD also concluded that “the park had not been cleared of all persons before the persons who had been observed to have engaged in criminal misconduct entered the park. Nor had an order been given advising all persons within the park to disperse.” Id. ¶ 60; Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 03-767 ¶ 58. Chief Ramsey ultimately issued an official reprimand to Assistant Chief Newsham for the failure to give warnings to disperse before conducting the mass arrests. Id. ¶¶ 60-61; Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 03-767 ¶¶ 58-59.
Plaintiffs’ claims in both actions flow from these mass arrests and subsequent detention. The heart of their “trap and arrest” charge is that police cordoned off the Pershing Park area,2 essentially “trapping” the protestors within the Park, and
2 The arrests at Vermont and K Street are addressed infra.
8

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 9 of 53
then initiated a mass arrest without first warning the protestors that they must disperse to avoid arrest. Plaintiffs argue that these arrests, the resulting detention, and the use of restraining force, violate clearly established constitutional protections, and allege that Mayor Williams, Chief Ramsey, and Assistant Chief Newsham should be held liable in both their official and personal capacities for the constitutional injuries. The three defendants argue that principles of qualified immunity shield them from any personal liability. Thus, the question currently before the Court is not whether plaintiffs prevail on their underlying claims, but rather whether any or all of the defendants could face personal liability if plaintiffs do eventually prevail on their claims.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW In appraising the sufficiency of a complaint, a court must
follow "the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (stating that a court may dismiss a complaint "only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be
9

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 10 of 53
proved consistent with the allegations")(quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)). For purposes of a motion to dismiss, a court must treat the plaintiff's factual allegations as true, and must liberally construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff. See, e.g., Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975); Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421-422 (1969).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment should be granted only if the moving party has shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); Waterhouse v. District of Columbia, 298 F.3d 989, 991 (D.C. Cir. 2002). As with the Court’s review of a motion to dismiss, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). However, when the moving party has carried its burden, the non-movant must raise more than “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts;” simply stated, only a genuine issue of fact will suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 586.
10

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 11 of 53
IV. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD “Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for
damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in the light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time of their actions.” Lederman v. United States, 291 F.3d 36, 46 (D.C. Cir. 2002); see also Butera v. District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637, 646-47 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, the question becomes whether the government official asserting qualified immunity “knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815 (1982). In order for an immunity defense to be defeated, “the contours of the right [must be] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987).
Thus, the qualified immunity analysis is essentially a two step inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional violation has occurred, and (2) whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Saucier v.
11

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 12 of 53
Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001); International Action Center v. United States, 365 F.3d 20, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The question of whether a right is “clearly established” involves an analysis of “whether the Supreme Court, the District of Columbia Circuit, and, to the extent that there is a consensus, other circuits have spoken clearly on the lawfulness of the conduct at issue.” Butera, 235 F.3d at 652. If it would “be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted,” the right is considered clearly established. Groh v. Ramirez, 124 S.Ct 1284, 1293 (2004) (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202); see also Butera, 235 F.3d at 646 (the constitutional right must be established “at the appropriate level of specificity”).
Finally, the Court must determine whether the defendant’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law. It is no defense that an official was unaware of a law, as a “reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-819 (1982). Thus, “a police officer should prevail on an assertion of qualified immunity if a reasonable officer possessing the same information could have believed that his conduct was lawful.” District of Columbia v. Indiana Evans, 644 A.2d 1008, 1025 (D.C. 1994).
12

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 13 of 53
V. ANALYSIS A. Immunity for Arrests in Pershing Park in Civil Action 022283 and Civil Action 03-767 Plaintiffs argue that the type of arrest at issue–-that is,
a mass arrest made without a previous order to disperse--has been clearly established as unconstitutional and unlawful. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir. 1977), establishes the clear contours and guidelines pertaining to a police officer’s authority to order a mass arrest.
Dellums arose on facts remarkably similar to the present litigation. There, Vietnam War protestors were arrested at the foot of the Capitol steps; the area was cordoned off by police, all assembled were prevented from leaving, and mass arrests ensued. Dellums focused on the police chief’s immunity claim; specifically, “whether Chief Powell acted in good faith in arresting plaintiffs and whether his actions were reasonable in light of all the circumstances.” Dellums, 566 F.2d at 176. Upholding a jury verdict finding Chief Powell personally liable for First and Fourth Amendment constitutional violations, the Court noted it was the Chief’s burden to show that “he had an honest belief that the plaintiffs as a group were violating the
13

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 14 of 53
law by assembling at the Capitol, and further, that this belief
was reasonable in light of the facts available to him at the
scene of the arrests and the law as it then existed.” Id. at 177
(emphasis in original). The Court concluded that
plaintiffs could not constitutionally have been arrested as a group . . . unless Chief Powell had reason to believe: (1) that the plaintiffs comprised one of the groups that could be banned or ordered from the Capitol under Nicholson; (2) that orders to disperse had been given which apprised the crowd as a whole that it was under an obligation to leave; and (3) that a reasonable opportunity had been given the plaintiffs to leave the Capitol. This conclusion . . . in our judgment represents well settled law which Chief Powell was obliged to know on pain of losing his qualified immunity.
Id. at 183 (emphasis added).
The Court agrees that Dellums establishes the contours of
constitutional protections in mass arrest cases. While
defendants urge a reliance on Washington Mobilization Committee
v. Cullinane, the Court notes that Dellums and Cullinane are not
inconsistent. While Cullinane stands for the proposition that
police officers do not have a duty to single out individuals for
arrest if a protest as a whole has turned violent, the Court,
consistent with Dellums, made clear that
We do not suggest of course that one who has violated no law may be arrested for the offenses of those who have been violent or obstructive. As we have seen . . . the police may validly order violent or obstructive demonstrators to disperse or clear the
14

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 15 of 53
streets. If any demonstrator or bystander refuses to obey such an order after fair notice and opportunity to comply, his arrest does not violate the Constitution even though he has not previously been violent or obstructive.
Cullinane, 566 F.2d 107, 120 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (emphasis added).
1. Assistant Chief Newsham’s Immunity Claims for Pershing Park Arrests in Civil Action 02-2283 and Civil Action 037673
Assistant Chief Newsham asserts that the mass arrest on
September 27, 2002, was lawful and, even assuming arguendo that
the arrest was unconstitutional under Dellums and its progeny, he
acted reasonably in ordering the mass arrest. Specifically,
Assistant Chief Newsham argues that notwithstanding his failure
to give an order to disperse prior to effectuating arrests, there
was independent probable cause to arrest the protestors because
(1) they had broken the law prior to entering the Park, (2) the
protestors’ presence in the Park was unlawful, and (3) he feared
3 Assistant Chief Newsham’s motions to dismiss or for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in Civil Actions 02-2283 and 03-767 focus solely on the mass arrest at Pershing Park. Accordingly, the Court understands the Assistant Chief to be asserting qualified immunity only as plaintiffs’ claims dealing directly with the Pershing Park arrests. See Newsham Mot. to Dismiss in 03-767 at 2 (“Assistant Chief Newsham ordered the arrest at Pershing Park, but he had no involvement nor responsibility or control over the circumstances under which plaintiffs were detained after they were arrested . . .thus, this motion addresses only those portions of the Amended Complaint which pertain to Assitant Chief Newsham.”).
15

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 16 of 53

the protestors would engage in violence if they were permitted to

leave the Park.

Despite the fact that the official charge levied against the

plaintiffs was “failure to obey,” Assistant Chief Newsham argues

that the asserted probable cause to arrest plaintiffs was not

based on plaintiffs’ refusal to obey a dispersal order, but

rather was established by his knowledge of the protestors’ prior

unlawful activity. Specifically, Newsham states that he was

aware, through personal observation and other officers’ reports,

that

1.

no parade permits had been issued, and thus any

street demonstrations were per se unlawful;

2.

demonstrators were disregarding officers’

instructions to move from the street to the

sidewalks;

3.

demonstrators were marching in the streets and

impeding traffic;

4.

demonstrators had knocked over trash containers and

newspaper vending machines, and that at least one

window had been smashed; and

5.

demonstrators had engaged in a “Sleeping Dragon”

protest maneuver, where they had chained themselves

together so police could not remove them

individually.

Newsham Statement of Material Facts in 03-767 ¶¶ 37-43. Assistant Chief Newsham argues that this alleged illegal activity, coupled with his knowledge that MPD had received intelligence information that groups of protestors had declared an intention to “shut down the city,” established independent
16

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 17 of 53
probable cause for arrest. Newsham Mot. in 03-767 at 15. Finally, Assistant Chief Newsham states he believed the demonstrators “were continuing to act as an organized group and would at some point leave the park to continue their unlawful demonstrations in the streets.” Newsham Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶ 48. Newsham argues he
believed that if the demonstrators were allowed to leave Pershing Park, they would continue their unlawful, destructive behavior, and if they did so, particularly in a major traffic artery or if they approached the vicinity of the White House, MPD Officers would be required to make arrests of roving bands of demonstrators in the streets, thus increasing the likelihood of violence and injury to the police, to demonstrators and to passerby.
Id. ¶ 50. Assistant Chief Newsham concludes that because he had probable cause to believe the protestors had already committed unlawful acts, and because the decision to order the mass arrest in Pershing Park was also an attempt to prevent possible future violence, he was under no obligation to issue a warning to disperse and allow the protestors an opportunity to do so before ordering the mass arrest. Accordingly, Assistant Chief Newsham asserts that he is immune from any personal liability for the mass arrest.
The Court is not persuaded by Assistant Chief Newsham’s arguments. As an initial matter, the Court notes that the arrested protestors were charged with “failure to obey.” Not a
17

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 18 of 53
single arrestee was charged with any of the offenses that Assistant Chief Newsham avers established the probable cause to lawfully effect the mass arrest. Tr. 4/6/04 at 79 (Newsham’s counsel admitting none of the plaintiffs were criminally charged for any activity prior to entering the Park); Id. at 85 (Newsham’s counsel stating the protestors “were not doing anything illegal in the Park in and of itself”). Indeed, Assistant Chief Newsham expressly admits he was unable to identify specific people who had allegedly committed this criminal conduct, but could only identify “groups” of people. Id. at 86 (Newsham’s counsel agreeing with the Court that Newsham “could not identify any individuals in that group as being individuals whom he had observed committing criminal activity before they arrived at Pershing Park”). It is thus not even clear that these prior violations actually occurred, or would have formed the basis for arrest. Moreover, given that defendants concede that an order to disperse was not given, the “failure to obey” charge is nothing short of ludicrous: the arrest for “failure to obey” was clearly made without probable cause, or factual predicate, as there simply was no order to “obey.”
It is thus clear that there was not a legitimate basis to arrest each individual in Pershing Park. Assistant Chief
18

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 19 of 53
Newsham’s belief that some protestors may have earlier broken laws does not justify a mass arrest of an entire group of lawful protestors, as a
person's mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause [as to that person] . . . seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person. This requirement cannot be undercut or avoided by simply pointing to the fact that coincidentally there exists probable cause to search or seize another or to search the premises where the person may happen to be. Maryland v. Pringle, 124 S.Ct. 795, 801 (2003) (internal citation and quotation omitted).4 As plaintiffs aptly state, Dellums establishes a “bright line rule” that “where a group contains persons who have not been violent or obstructive, police may not mass arrest the demonstration as a group without fair warning or notice and the opportunity to come into compliance and disperse.” Pls.’ Opp. to Ramsey and Williams Mot. to Dismiss in 02-2283 at 10. It is undisputed that no order to disperse was given before the Park was cordoned off and the mass arrest initiated. This failure to give the protestors–-who were essentially trapped in the Park--fair
4 The Supreme Court did find that probable cause existed in Pringle, but was careful to distinguish that case from a longline of cases foreclosing probable cause based on guilt by association.
19

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 20 of 53
warning and an actual chance to disperse is fatal. See Tr.
4/6/04 at 18 (Chief Ramsey’s counsel agreeing with the Court
that protestors could not leave the Park, as there was “no way
to get out of [the] cordoned off area”).
The Dellums Court found the police chief’s failure to make
sure his dispersal orders were actually heard, not merely given,
rendered the mass arrest illegal. Dellums, 566 F.2d at 183.
Here, it is uncontroverted that Assistant Chief Newsham didn’t
even attempt to give a dispersal order, thus rendering the
arrests in flat conflict with the clearly established parameters
of Dellums. It is not the arrests per se, but his failure to
give an order reasonably calculated to give notice of the need
to disperse before ordering the arrests, that renders the arrests constitutionally infirm.5
Thus, it is clear that the mass arrest in Pershing Park ran
5 Assistant Chief Newsham’s statement that he “believed that any individuals in the Park who were not part of the unlawful demonstration had ample opportunity to leave and had done so” does not cure his failure to give a dispersal order, and is belied by the facts that (1) the Park was cordoned off, thus making exit impossible, and (2) the MPD’s after-action report found that individuals who were not part of the demonstration were indeed arrested. Newsham Statement of Material Facts in 022283 ¶ 55. “[T]he ‘fair notice’ required . . . is notice reasonably likely to have reached all of the crowd.” Dellums, 566 F.2d at 181 n. 31 (emphasis added). Clearly, Assistant Chief Newsham’s “belief” that the crowd could have dispersed, without actually giving a warning to disperse, did not put the crowd, including mere bystanders, on notice of any need to disperse.
20

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 21 of 53
afoul of the First and Fourth Amendment constitutional protections established in Dellums. Proceeding to the next step of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court concludes that Assistant Chief Newsham is not shielded by a veil of qualified immunity for this constitutional violation. In light of clearly established law predicated on almost identical factual circumstances, his actions cannot be considered those of a reasonable police officer.
First, the binding authority in this Circuit, coupled with MPD Guidelines, defines the law at issue as “clearly established,” and charges Assistant Chief Newsham with notice of, and adherence to, that law. In light of Dellums, no “reasonable officer could claim to be unaware” of the need to give a warning to disperse before arresting a crowd of lawful protestors. Groh, 124 S.Ct at 1294. The situation Assistant Chief Newsham encountered in Pershing Park falls squarely into the Dellums scenario: when faced with a crowd of demonstrators who were not as a whole violent or destructive, police officers must provide the crowd with a notice to disperse before commencing a mass arrest. Dellums, 566 F.2d at 183. There simply isn’t any ambiguity as to the established law.
Moreover, the MPD Manual for Mass Demonstrations requires several stages of warnings before a mass arrest order can be
21

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 22 of 53
given, and clearly states that mass arrest is authorized only if, after a reasonable amount of time following the initial warnings, the crowd refuses to disperse, the unit commander . . . enter[s] a final warning ordering the participators to disperse or be subject to arrest . . . if after a reasonable amount of time following the final warning, the crowd continues in its refusal to disperse, the unit commander shall direct that the violators be arrested.
MPD Manual on Mass Demonstrations at 21 (emphasis added); see also Newsham Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶ 36 (admitting knowledge of Chief Ramsey’s instructions that demonstrators should be accommodated and minor violations of the law would be permitted in order to facilitate First Amendment expression); Groh, 124 S.Ct at 1294 (department guidelines can place defendant on notice of potential personal liability).
Finally, it is most significant that other officials on the scene, witnessing the same events and applying the same clearly settled law, decided that a mass arrest was not warranted. For example, the United States Park Police, who have the authority to issue demonstration permits in the Park, refused to arrest anyone for demonstrating without a permit. See Major Richard Murphy Decl. ¶ 44 (“I explained [to Newsham] . . . that while no group had a Park Service permit for the Park, that the Park Police would make no arrests, explaining that . . . our Park Police procedure was to first warn individuals that they were in
22

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 23 of 53
violation and allow them to come into voluntary compliance.”) (emphasis added). CDU Coordinator Lieutenant Jeffrey Herold also advised command officials on the scene at Pershing Park that they should not effectuate a mass arrest because he “could not see how they established probable cause,” and also recommended alternatives to mass arrest. See Herold Depo. at 333-34, 335. Thus, any argument that other officers in the same position would have also ordered the mass arrest falls flat, as other officers actually on the scene concluded that ordering a mass arrest without first giving an order to disperse was not lawful.
Here, as noted above, individualized probable cause to arrest each individual was not established, as Assistant Chief Newsham did not witness each arrestee commit an arrestable offense. Absent a dispersal order and an opportunity to disperse, a mass arrest of lawful protestors without a prior dispersal order is constitutionally infirm.6
Assistant Chief Newsham’s order for a mass arrest made
6 Moreover, Assistant Chief Newsham’s assertion that the gathering in Pershing Park was per se illegal because the protestors were there without a permit is belied by Newsham’s counsel’s express statement that the protestors “were not doing anything illegal in the Park in and of itself.” Tr. 4/6/04 at 85. Thus, even if the crowd was demonstrating without a permit, Newsham had an obligation to give a dispersal warning and order before commencing the mass arrests.
23

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 24 of 53
without a previous order to disperse violated clearly established law and was not objectively reasonable. Accordingly, his claim of qualified immunity as to personal liability for the Pershing Park arrests is denied.
2. Chief Ramsey’s Immunity Claims for Arrests in Pershing Park in Civil Action 02-2283 and Civil Action 03-767 For the reasons stated supra, the Court finds the mass arrest in Pershing Park ran afoul of the clearly established constitutional protections enunciated in Dellums. Indeed, during the April 6, 2004, Motions Hearing, Chief Ramsey’s counsel admitted that the arrests could not be justified as constitutional, and that a dispersal order should have been given. See Tr. 4/6/04 at 24. Thus, as essentially conceded by Chief Ramsey, the only question as to Chief Ramsey’s possible personal liability for the mass arrest is whether he acted in an objectively reasonable manner. The crux of Chief Ramsey’s argument is that his approval of the mass arrest was reasonable because he was unaware that an order to disperse had not been given prior to the commencement of arrests. Plaintiffs argue that because Chief Ramsey was on the scene prior to the arrests, and conferring with Assistant Chief Newsham, Chief Ramsey participated in and approved the mass arrest conducted in clear violation of Dellums, and thus can be
24

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 25 of 53
held personally liable for the resultant constitutional violations. Indeed, Chief Ramsey candidly admits that he arrived at Pershing Park before the arrests began. “By the time that Chief Ramsey . . . arrived, Newsham had already decided to arrest the persons who had collected in Pershing Park . . . Newsham was awaiting the arrival of buses to transport those individuals to arrest processing sites once the arrests had been effected before he directed the arrest process to be commenced.” Ramsey Mot. for Summ. J. in 03-767 at 7. Ramsey also states that he “believed, based upon the conversation that he . . . had with Newsham, that probable cause existed to support the arrests of the persons in Pershing Park.” Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 03-767 ¶ 38. He further admits that “Newsham ordered the arrests of the persons in Pershing Park, correctly believing that, based upon what he advised Chief Ramsey in their conversation, Chief Ramsey tacitly approved Newsham’s decision. Based on information that Chief Ramsey had received, Chief Ramsey did not countermand Newsham’s decision and order.” Williams and Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶ 38 (emphasis added). It is thus clear that Chief Ramsey approved the arrests before they occurred.
If Chief Ramsey knew that a dispersal order had not been given, his immunity defense obviously fails for the same reasons
25

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 26 of 53
articulated in the discussion of Assistant Chief Newsham’s immunity. It is unclear, however, whether Chief Ramsey was aware that the crowd had not been ordered to disperse. Chief Ramsey’s original sworn statement claims that when he arrived at the Park, Assistant Chief Newsham “explained . . . he believed that he had probable cause to arrest persons who had entered the Park at the time they arrived in the park, based on offenses they had committed before entering Pershing Park, without ordering them to disperse and awaiting their response.” Ramsey Decl. 10/13/03 ¶¶ 17-19 (emphasis added). However, Chief Ramsey also claims that he “did not realize, at that point, that the park had not, in fact, been cleared of people before it came to be a holding area . . . or that orders to disperse had not been given to the crowd.” Williams and Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶ 39 (emphasis added). During oral argument, counsel stated that Chief Ramsey was not aware of the failure to give an order to disperse. Thus, the existence of this factual dispute on such a central issue–-Ramsey’s knowledge or lack thereof that a dispersal order had not been given-–could itself preclude summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that Chief Ramsey was unaware that a dispersal order had not been given prior to the arrest, this simply begs the question of why Chief Ramsey did
26

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 27 of 53
not ask whether the order had been given prior to approving the arrest. Chief Ramsey fully admits he had an opportunity to confer with Assistant Chief Newsham prior to the arrest, and only after this conferral did he approve the mass arrest. See Tr. 4/6/04 at 9 (Ramsey’s counsel stating “there was a consultation between Assistant Chief Newsham and the Chief in which the decision to arrest was, in fact, approved”). It is quite clear to the Court that a reasonable police chief, coming upon the scene of 400 people exercising their First Amendment rights to engage in protest activities and not currently engaging in any illegal behavior, would recognize the need--and indeed the duty--to ask a subordinate officer whether a dispersal order had been given prior to ratifying a mass arrest. See Tr. 4/6/04 at 20-21 (Ramsey’s counsel stating “nothing has been suggested . . . that criminal conduct arising in an arrest” was taking place in Pershing Park when Chief Ramsey arrived). A police officer, and especially a seasoned police chief in the Nation’s Capital, has a duty to pursue “reasonable avenues of investigation” before interfering with the exercise of First Amendment freedoms, “especially when . . . it is unclear whether a crime had even taken place.” Be Vier v. Hucal, 806 F.2d 123, 127 (7th Cir. 1986)(denying qualified immunity where police officer had failed to make reasonable inquiries before making
27

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 28 of 53
arrest). Given the admitted dearth of illegal activity occurring in the Park, Chief Ramsey had a duty to inquire as to the circumstances surrounding and justifying the mass arrest.
Chief Ramsey’s reliance on Assistant Chief Newsham’s onscene report does not excuse Chief Ramsey’s approval of unlawful arrests, and does not rise to the level of investigation that the Pershing Park situation warranted.
Although a police officer is entitled to rely on information obtained from fellow law enforcement officers . . . this in no way negates a police officer's duty to reasonably inquire or investigate these reported facts. We have denied qualified immunity to police officers who had indisputably relied on information obtained from other law enforcement officials, when we concluded that they violated their duty to conduct further investigation.
Mendocino Environmental Center v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1293 n.16 (9th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). Thus, even if Chief Ramsey did not have knowledge of Assistant Chief Newsham’s failure to give the dispersal order, it was patently unreasonable for him to approve the arrest without asking essential questions--the most essential being whether an order to disperse had been given. It is similarly unreasonable, in view of Dellums and clearly established MPD policies, for the Chief to accept Assistant Chief Newsham’s assertions that there was probable cause for arrest as to every person in the Park.
28

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 29 of 53
Quite simply, a police chief in Chief Ramsey’s position could not reasonably assume, absent probing inquiry, that all 400 individuals in the Park had independently engaged in illegal behavior. See Herold Depo. at 333-34, 335 (there was not probable cause to arrest entire crowd); Tr. 4/6/04 at 20-21 (no illegal activity was occurring in the Park); see also Be Vier, 806 F.2d at 127 (“A police officer may not close her or his eyes to facts that would help clarify the circumstances of an arrest.”). 7
Finally, plaintiffs argue that Chief Ramsey violated his duty to supervise the Assistant Chief and his subordinates. The most recent Circuit case on the issue of supervisorial liability, International Action Center v. U.S., draws a sharp distinction between supervisorial liability for direct action and liability for inaction. 365 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2004). International Action Center makes clear that supervisorial liability cannot be grounded on a theory of “general inaction.”
A supervisor who merely fails to detect and prevent a subordinate’s misconduct . . . cannot be liable for
7 At the April 6, 2004, Motions Hearing, defense counsel relied heavily on Chief Ramsey’s issuance of a post-arrest official reprimand to Assistant Chief Newsham–-reprimanding Assistant Chief Newsham for “the failure to give warnings to disperse”--as evidence that Chief Ramsey did not approve the arrests. However, the after-the-fact reprimand does not cure the failure to ask the questions that a reasonable police chief on the scene must ask–namely, if an order to disperse had been given.
29

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 30 of 53
that misconduct. The supervisor must know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a blind eye for fear of what they might see.
Id. at 28 (internal citation and quotation omitted).
Chief Ramsey’s performance at Pershing Park is precisely
the active participation capable of rendering a supervisor
personally liable for constitutional violations. At worst,
Chief Ramsey knew the dispersal order had not been given and
thus deliberately flaunted existing law and MPD policies; at
best, he turned a “blind eye” to the situation and refused to
ask the questions necessary to ascertain whether arrests were
constitutionally permitted. Chief Ramsey was actually on the
scene before and when the arrests occurred, had the opportunity
to confer with his subordinate, and approved the decision to
order the arrests. He is thus just as liable for the resulting constitutional violations as Assistant Chief Newsham.8 See
8 Plaintiffs further argue that in addition to direct participation in the arrests, Chief Ramsey can also be personally liable for his ratification of the unconstitutional mass arrests. Plaintiffs state that Ramsey ratified the arrests by (1) his direct participation; (2) his rejection of arrestees’ complaints even as they sought to leave; (3) his express approval of the mass arrests at the September 27, 2002, press conference; (4) his comments in late September that he “offer[ed] no excuses, and no apologies” for the arrests and rated the MPD’s actions as “A plus;” and (5) his April 29, 2003, testimony to the D.C. Council that the MPD does “a very good job dealing with” mass demonstrations. See Pls.’ Opp. to Ramsey and Williams Mot. to Dismiss in 02-2283 at 20 (citing and quoting press articles). However, given that the Court concludes that Chief Ramsey
30

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 31 of 53
Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245, 1262 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“in order to find a supervisory official personally liable in damages for the unconstitutional acts of his subordinate, it must be shown that he was responsible for supervising the wrongdoer; that a duty to instruct the subordinate to prevent constitutional harm arose from the surrounding circumstances; and that, as a result of the official's failure to instruct, the plaintiff was harmed in the manner threatened.”); see also Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 903 (6th Cir. 2003) (supervisor liability under § 1983 is appropriate when "the supervisor encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it," or "at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate") (emphasis added). Accordingly, for any or all of the reasons stated above, Chief Ramsey’s motion for qualified immunity as to the Pershing Park arrests is denied.
destroyed his immunity for the arrest through direct participation, the Court need not reach this indirect participation issue.
31

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 32 of 53
3. Mayor Williams’s Immunity for Arrests in Pershing Park in Civil Action 02-2283 Plaintiffs claim that Mayor Williams is also personally liable for the mass arrests based on a failure to instruct Chief Ramsey and Assistant Chief Newsham “not to engage in mass unconstitutional arrests,” ratification of the arrests in media interviews following the arrest, and allowance of a custom or practice of using mass arrests to terminate protests. Mayor Williams argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on all of plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims; the thrust of his qualified immunity defense is that, even if plaintiffs did suffer a constitutional harm at the hands of the MPD, he cannot be held vicariously liable for his subordinates’ actions. In light of International Action Center, the Court agrees. Plaintiffs argue that Mayor Williams “subjected plaintiffs to an ongoing period of incarceration when on September 27, 2002, he held a press conference to reap political benefit from the Chief’s mass false arrests. The Mayor, at that time, could have taken measures to enforce the U.S. Constitution, to intervene against the Chief, to cease the incarceration of the arrestees or to limit the damage done by demanding arrests cease and persons be released immediately.” See Pls.’ Opp. to Ramsey and Williams Mot. to Dismiss in 02-2283 at 21. Plaintiffs claim
32

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 33 of 53
that Mayor Williams ratified the mass arrests during the September 27th press conference, “at which he praised the execution of the mass arrests as a proper balance between open expression and public safety.” Id. at 22.
In light of International Action Center v. U.S., the case for Mayor Williams’s personal liability is tenuous. First, the Mayor cannot be held liable for an active failure to supervise on these specific facts, as, unlike Chief Ramsey, he was not on the scene at the time of the arrest, was not consulted about the mass arrests before they occurred, and did not approve the arrests before they occurred. See International Action Center, 365 F.3d at 26-28 (recognizing that there is a difference between supervisorial liability for inaction and supervisorial liability for active participation).
As to Mayor Williams’s liability for supervisorial inaction, plaintiffs allege that past protest-related mass arrests should have prompted the Mayor to take proactive steps to prevent future mass arrests. However, the bar for piercing the qualified immunity shield on a theory of inaction in the face of knowledge of past transgressions is high, as a “supervisor who merely fails to detect and prevent a subordinate’s misconduct . . . cannot be liable for that misconduct.” International Action Center, 365 F.3d at 28. As clearly stated in International Action Center,
33

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 34 of 53
such liability cannot simply be premised on a showing that the supervisor had “knowledge of past transgressions.” Id. Rather, to defeat a supervisor’s assertion of qualified immunity, plaintiffs must “link the likelihood of particular constitutional violations to any past transgressions,” and also link “particular supervisors to past practices or any familiarity with them.” Id. at 27. Thus, plaintiffs must establish either that (1) Mayor Williams authorized the allegedly unconstitutional mass arrests, or (2) Mayor Williams had reason to believe, prior to September 27, 2002, that Assistant Chief Newsham and Chief Ramsey would engage in unconstitutional arrests. This they have not done.
First, Chief Ramsey has made clear that he knew Mayor Williams would not authorize arrests without probable cause. Williams and Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶ 64. Given that Mayor Williams was not on the scene of the arrests, and was not consulted prior to the arrests, any claims of mayoral authorization are defeated. As Mayor Williams argues, he is not kept apprised of the “complex and fluid details of mass demonstration policing efforts,” and thus “does not possess the basis necessary to ratify unconstitutional practices.” Ramsey and Williams Mot. to Dismiss in 02-2283 at 33. Absent evidence to the contrary, the Court accepts this representation.
Whether the Mayor’s knowledge of a “history of past
34

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 35 of 53
transgressions” creates a duty to act proactively to prevent unconstitutional mass arrests is admittedly a closer question. Pls.’ Supplemental Brief in 02-2283 at 10. Plaintiffs state that IMF/World Bank protestors were “subjected to almost identical mass false arrests” in April 2000, and cite to the extensive press coverage of the 2000 arrests, and comments made by Mayor Williams after those arrests, as evidence that he was fully aware of this past practice. Pls.’ Response at 28-30 (alleging that the 2000 protestors, like the 2002 protestors, were arrested without prior notice to disperse, were prevented from leaving the protest area, and were held overnight); Pls.’ Supplemental Brief in 02-2283 at 11-12. Thus, plaintiffs conclude that the Mayor has “steadfastly chosen to not take effective action to prevent the continuation of this policy, practice or custom of which he approves.” Pls.’ Supplemental Brief in 02-2283 at 14.
However, the central question is whether the Mayor’s actual knowledge of these past practices established a sufficient link to the instant mass arrests so as to hold the Mayor liable for a failure to prevent his subordinates from repeating the mass arrest scenario. Any personal liability cannot rest on the Mayor’s knowledge of past events; plaintiffs also have to show that Mayor Williams could have, and failed to, take steps to prevent the Pershing Park arrests.
35

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 36 of 53
The record evidence demonstrates that at least minimal steps to ensure protests would be permitted were indeed taken. It is undisputed that during the weeks prior to September 27, 2002, Chief Ramsey held meetings with the Assistant Chiefs and instructed them that “arrests of demonstrators should be avoided if at all possible. His intent was to allow anyone who wanted to protest or demonstrate to do so even if it meant overlooking some minor violations of the law that did not seriously threaten public safety.” Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 03-767 ¶¶ 21, 23. There is record evidence of supplemental officer training, evidence that the Chief knew the Mayor would not permit unconstitutional arrests, and evidence of a declared policy to allow minor violations of the law in order to facilitate First Amendment expression. That the Mayor’s subordinates violated clearly established MPD policy and federal law does not remove the Mayor’s personal liability shield, as it appears, based on pre-protest preparations, that the Mayor had reason to believe his subordinates would comply with federal law and MPD policies. See International Action Center, 365 F.3d at 28 (where supervisorial inaction is alleged plaintiffs must “establish a high degree of fault in order to implicate the supervisor in the constitutional infractions of his subordinates”).
Finally, plaintiffs’ claims that Mayor Williams ratified the
36

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 37 of 53
arrests by speaking approvingly of the MPD during a subsequent news conference also fall flat. Mayor Williams persuasively argues it was not objectively unreasonable at the time for the Mayor to comment on the actions of the Police Department, and that public officials should not be precluded from public comment for fear of imputed personal liability. Further, once allegations of wrongdoing came to light following September 27, 2002, Mayor Williams ordered an investigation of the Pershing Park arrests. This resulted in the publication of a revised Mass Demonstration Manual in May 2003, and the issuance of an official reprimand to Assistant Chief Newsham. Williams and Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶¶ 59-61.
Accordingly, given that Mayor Williams did not actively participate in the arrests, and recognizing the high bar for supervisorial inaction liability established in International Action Center, the Court finds that Mayor Williams is not personally liable for the Pershing Park arrests.
B. Immunity for Arrests at Vermont and K Streets in Civil Action 02-2283 and Civil Action 03-767 Based on the forgoing discussion, the analysis as to the
37

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 38 of 53
arrests at Vermont and K Streets is considerably more brief.9 Assistant Chief Brian Jordan, who is not a named defendant, was responsible for the area surrounding Vermont and K Streets. Jordan Decl. ¶ 2; Williams and Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶ 53.
Simply stated, there is no record evidence that Chief Ramsey was on the scene of Vermont and K Streets at the time of the arrests, and the Court accepts Chief Ramsey’s assertion, through counsel, that Chief Ramsey was not present. Tr. 4/6/04 at 39. Further, unlike the arrests in Pershing Park, there is no record evidence suggesting that Chief Ramsey in any way approved the Vermont and K Streets arrests. Given that Chief Ramsey did not actively participate in the arrests, he could only be held personally liable on a theory of failure to supervise Assistant Chief Jordan. As discussed supra, however, a “supervisor who merely fails to detect and prevent a subordinate’s misconduct . . . cannot be liable for that misconduct.” International Action Center, 365 F.3d at 28. Chief Ramsey asserts, and it has not
9 The Court has very little information regarding the arrests at Vermont and K Streets, as the parties have devoted scant resources to the issue. Indeed, the Abbate plaintiffs do not even mention the Vermont and K Street arrest in their Opposition to Chief Ramsey’s Motion for Summary Judgment; the Barham plaintiffs devote two paragraphs to Chief Ramsey’s potential personal liability for those arrests.
38

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 39 of 53
been contradicted, that in the days leading up to the protests he repeatedly conferred with his command staff, “expressed his intent to allow anyone who wanted to protest or demonstrate to do so even if it meant that the MPD had to overlook some minor violations of the law,” and instructed the command staff to avoid arrests of demonstrators “if at all possible.” Ramsey Decl. ¶¶ 4-10. While this prior instruction to his subordinates does not save Chief Ramsey as to the Pershing Park arrests, as he actively participated in and approved the arrests, this prior instruction does protect Chief Ramsey from personal liability for supervisorial inaction as to Assistant Chief Jordan’s actions at Vermont and K Streets.
Finally, the preceding discussion of Mayor Williams’s liability for the Pershing Park arrests applies with equal force to his liability for the Vermont and K Streets arrests; Mayor Williams cannot be held personally liable on a supervisorial inaction theory for violations arising from the Vermont and K Streets arrests.
C. Conditions of Confinement/Excessive Force Claims in Civil Action 02-2283 and Civil Action 03-767 The first step in every qualified immunity analysis is to
determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred. The
39

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 40 of 53
Court finds that plaintiffs are unable to establish that defendants’ actions, specifically the use of flexi-cuffs during plaintiffs’ arrests, constituted excessive force, and thus concludes that no constitutional violation capable of destroying the qualified immunity shield occurred.
Two types of excessive force claims are at issue. See Tr. 4/6/04 at 98-99. First, the Barham plaintiffs assert excessive force allegations primarily as an element of their false arrest claims. Id. at 98. In other words, the Barham plaintiffs’ excessive force claims are based on the alleged injury suffered as a result of the level of force used in effectuating an unlawful arrest. In contrast, the Abbate plaintiffs challenge the use of force during the arrests and the “practice of the socalled wrist to ankle handcuffing or flexi-cuffing which occurred for those people who were detained at the police academy . . . whether or not it is also an element of false arrest damages.” Id. at 99. The Abbate plaintiffs allege that the level of force used during their post-arrest detention was excessive. See id. at 92, 98-99, 102-05. Under either concept of excessive force, plaintiffs cannot succeed.
1. Use of Force During the Arrests In Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court established “that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive
40

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 41 of 53
force . . . in the course of arrest . . . should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard, rather than under a ‘substantive due process’ approach.” 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989) (emphasis in original). The Graham approach has been expressly adopted by the D.C. Circuit. See, e.g., Rogala v. District of Columbia, 161 F.3d 44, 54 (D.C. Cir. 1999); DeGraff v. District of Columbia, 120 F.3d 298, 301-02 (D.C. Cir. 1997). However, whether a specific action during an arrest constitutes a “reasonable” use of force remains a murky question.
Determining the “reasonableness” or “excessiveness” of a specific level of force during an arrest requires “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” with the ultimate question being “whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97. In conducting its analysis, the Court will look to “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id. at 396 (emphasis added).
The reasonableness of the level of force employed must be judged, ex ante, from the perspective of the officer on the
41

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 42 of 53
scene, “rather than [through] the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. It is clear that “[n]ot every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 396 (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, any determination of “reasonableness” must account for the “split-second judgments” often required in law enforcement. Id. at 397.
As a result, few bright line rules exist as to what constitutes excessive force during an arrest. In the present case, the Court is asked to determine whether the MPD’s use of “flexi-cuffs” to restrain plaintiffs (and other arrestees) during arrest amounted to excessive force. The D.C. Circuit has never addressed the question of when “flexi-cuffing” amounts to excessive force, and little guidance is provided by the other circuits. Several circuits have recognized that applying handcuffs too tightly may constitute excessive force. See, e.g., Bastien v. Goddard, 279 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2002); Kostrzewa v. City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 640 (6th Cir. 2001). However, other courts have held that handcuffing too tightly, without other actions, does not amount to excessive force. See Rodriguez v. Farrell, 294 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding an officer’s refusal to adjust the handcuffs on a complaining suspect does not necessarily constitute excessive force); Glenn v. City of Tyler,
42

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 43 of 53
242 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2001) (handcuffing alone is not excessive force).
In sum, the guidelines necessary to decide whether the use of handcuffs (or flexi-cuffs) during an arrest may constitute excessive force remain undefined in the D.C. Circuit and generally inconsistent across its sister circuits. This lack of clearly established law is relevant both to determining the “reasonableness” of an officer’s actions and whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs have provided no evidence to demonstrate the level of force utilized during their arrestexcessive. The arrestees were handcuffed in standard fashion and transported to a makeshift holding facility at the Police Academy. See Tr. 4/6/04 at 101-05. There have been no allegations that the manner in which plaintiffs were handcuffed at the time of arrest was unique or abnormally oppressive.
Accordingly, the Court finds that it is unlikely that the use of flexi-cuffs during the arrest, without more, amounts to a constitutional violation. It is undoubtedly reasonable to handcuff arrestees during a mass arrest, especially when they are being transported via an unsecured bus to a holding facility. Moreover, due to the lack of clearly established law in this Circuit or other circuits, the Court cannot find that it would “be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful
43

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 44 of 53
in the situation he confronted.” Groh v. Ramirez, 124 S.Ct 1284, 1293 (2004) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001)). Absent clearly established law, defendants cannot be held personally liable for the excessive force claims.
2. Use of Force During Detention Plaintiffs argue that the use of flexi-cuffs during detention, cuffing one wrist to the opposite ankle, violated clearly established law prohibiting the use of excessive force. They argue that “handcuffing unresisting plaintiffs, who were already confined in the Police Academy Gymnasium, wrist to ankle for an extended period of time was . . . grossly excessive and injurious . . . .” Pls.’ Opp. to Ramsey’s Motion to Dismiss in 03-767 at 17. Plaintiffs cite De Graff v. District of Columbia as the “clearly established law” on the Fourth Amendment and excessive force, and relied heavily on this case at oral argument. In DeGraff, the Circuit reversed and remanded the lower court’s decision that police officers who had handcuffed a woman, carried her horizontally for some distance, and then handcuffed her to a mailbox were immune from liability. Noting the limited record before the Court, but also warning that “it would be hard to justify their actions,” the Court remanded for further development of the record. 120 F. 3d 298, 302 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
44

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 45 of 53
However, De Graff makes clear that “police officers will not be found to have used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment if their actions were 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Id. at 302 (noting force has been considered appropriate with an “evasive suspect,” or “escaping prisoner” and when officers fear for their safety) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Here, the use of flexi-cuffs by officers facing a crowd of several hundred protestors is not analogous to handcuffing a woman, forcibly carrying her horizontally, and then cuffing her to a mailbox.
Further, the Supreme Court has noted that an excessive force due process analysis turns on whether the force used amounts to “punishment:”
A court must decide whether the disability is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other legitimate governmental purpose. Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part of detention facility officials, that determination generally will turn on whether an alternative purpose to which [the restriction] may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned [to it].
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538-39 (1979) (internal citation and quotation omitted). At oral argument on April 6, 2004, plaintiffs argued that it was not simply the use of flexi-cuffs,
45

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 46 of 53
but the period of time and the manner in which they were used
(cuffing wrist to opposite ankle) that rendered the use
excessive. They further argued that, given that the arrestees
were in a confined area–-an area designated for people who were
cooperating with police–-and not appearing to pose a risk of
violence or flight, the use of flexi-cuffs was not warranted.
Defendants Ramsey and Williams counter that “the use of
flexi-cuffs was reasonably related to the legitimate government
interest of maintaining the safety of the arrestees and the MPD
processing personnel,” and that a reasonable officer in the same
position would have deemed the use of flexi-cuffs necessary, or
at the least not constitutionally impermissible. See Ramsey
Reply Mem. in 03-767 at 15. Defendants argue that the flexi-cuff
restraints were used to (1) protect the safety of the detainees,
officers, and guards, (2) prevent inappropriate “fraternization”10 among the detainees, (3) prevent damage to
10 At oral argument, defendants asserted the use of flexi-cuffs met a need to prevent “fraternization” or “mass fornication” among the arrestees. As the Court made abundantly clear during oral argument, this rationale is flatly ridiculous, and the Court lends it no credit. Moreover, the Court sharply emphasizes that it does not accept this rationale as legitimate or as justifying the use of flexi-cuffs. See Tr. 6/14/04 at 16-21. Indeed, had this been the only rationale offered for the use of flexi-cuffs, the Court would find a constitutional violation had occurred, and would likely conclude that defendants face personal liability for that violation. Defendants have saved themselves, however, by wisely choosing to rely more heavily on arguments that flexicuffs were needed for protection and to prevent arrestee escape
46

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 47 of 53
property, and (4) prevent escape (given that the detainees were held in an open gymnasium rather than secured cells). See Tr. 4/6/04 at 118-25.
The use of flexi-cuffs, without more, does not, under the circumstances of mass arrest, reach the level of excessive force. Here, the officers had a legitimate need to control a large group of people. “[I]f a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to punishment.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 538-39. Putting aside the absurd fraternization/fornication argument, the use of flexi-cuff restraints is reasonably likely to serve the stated goals. Indeed, Bell specifically concludes that the government has “legitimate interests that stem from its need to manage the facility in which the individual is detained,” including the need to “maintain security and order at the institution.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 540.
Defendants Ramsey and Williams have supported the decision to use flexi-cuffs, and the Court concludes that reasonable officials in the same position could have made the same decision. Accordingly, the Court finds that Chief Ramsey and Mayor Williams are not personally liable on the excessive force claims.
from an unsecured area.
47

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 48 of 53
D. Length of Detention Claims in Civil Action 02-2283 and Civil Action 03-767 as to Defendant Ramsey and Defendant Williams Both the Abbate and Barham plaintiffs assert that their rights to due process and equal protection were violated by extended detention and the unavailability of citation and/or post and trial release. More specifically, the Abbate plaintiffs argue that Chief Ramsey “had a clearly established duty to release Plaintiffs from custody because he knew, while the plaintiffs were waiting to be loaded onto busses at Pershing Park, that they had been falsely arrested.” Pls.’ Opp. to Def. Ramsey’s Mot. for Summ. J. in 03-767 at 18. The Barham plaintiffs center their extended detention claim on allegations that “persons caught in targeted mass political sweeps” are denied access to citation release and post and trial release. The Barham plaintiffs argue that the post and trial option “allows an arrestee to be quickly released from jail or custody by posting collateral and receiving a trial date on which to challenge the legality of the arrest,” whereas the post and forfeit option allows an arrestee early release but does not allow her the opportunity to challenge the legality of the arrest. Am. Compl. in 02-2283 ¶ 10. The Barham plaintiffs
48

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 49 of 53
conclude that this amounts to “disparate treatment”–-apparently on a theory that non-protestors have access to citation and/or post and trial release-–and denies protestors equal protection under the law. Mayor Williams and Chief Ramsey claim they are immune from personal liability on plaintiffs’ extended detention claims.
As an initial matter, the Abbate plaintiffs’ mere contention that Chief Ramsey “knew” the arrests were invalid is not enough to defeat Chief Ramsey’s motion for summary judgment on the extended detention claims. While the Court agrees that the arrest itself violated clearly established constitutional rights, and that Chief Ramsey faces personal liability for that arrest, this does not automatically compel the conclusion that Chief Ramsey later violated a constitutional duty to release the arrestees.
Rather, the analysis of the constitutionality of the arrest and the analysis of whether a later duty to release arose are distinct. A duty to release only arises where an officer “actually does ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that one who has been . . . arrested” should not have been due to lack of probable cause. See McConney v. City of Houston, 863 F.2d 1180, 1185 (5th Cir. 1989). Moreover, an officer is not required to “reassess the initial probable cause finding at every change in
49

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 50 of 53
circumstances or protestation of the arrestee.” Id. There is no record evidence that new information came to Chief Ramsey’s attention following the arrests that alerted him to a need to release the arrestees, nor is there record evidence that Chief Ramsey at some point determined that the arrests were made without probable cause. Indeed, defendants’ defense still relies on the theory that the allegedly unlawful acts committed by the protestors before entering the Park established probable cause.
Accordingly, it appears to the Court that Chief Ramsey continually maintained the belief that the arrests were supported by probable cause, and thus no constitutional duty to release arose. Absent a constitutional violation, Chief Ramsey cannot face personal liability.
The Barham plaintiffs’ claims as to the length of detention, premised on an equal protection theory, fare no better. First, Chief Ramsey and the Mayor persuasively argue, supported by the record, that the MPD did attempt to make citation release available. See Williams and Ramsey Statement of Material Facts in 02-2283 ¶¶ 43-44 (noting that defendants arranged with the D.C. Superior Court for arrestees to be permitted access to citation release, despite the fact that citation release is typically not available when the Court is in session). The fact that citation release was not ultimately available, or was
50

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 51 of 53
delayed for many arrestees, was the result of unintended technological failures. Indeed, Chief Ramsey notes that when he was notified of the failure of the expedited procedures he dispatched additional resources to cure the problem. Mot. for Summ. J. in 03-767 at 30. Accordingly, the unavailability of citation release does not appear to trigger a constitutional violation, but rather amounts to negligence at most. It is well settled that mere negligence cannot lead to personal liability for an official. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332 (1986).
Finally, plaintiffs have cited no authority standing for the proposition that the unavailability of a post and trial release option amounts to a constitutional violation.11 Moreover, plaintiffs, while alleging disparate treatment, have not demonstrated that other groups of arrestees are routinely afforded access to post and trial release; thus, the Court does not have a comparative group against which to gauge the treatment of plaintiffs, and cannot conclude that plaintiffs were denied equal protection of the law.
Given that the unavailability of citation release was due to
11 The Court also notes that the Supreme Court has established that the government may detain an arrestee for up to 48 hours prior to a probable cause determination. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991). Here, plaintiffs allege a 30 hour detention.
51

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 52 of 53
(at most) negligence, and in the absence of evidence that the plaintiffs were treated differently than other groups of arrestees, the Court cannot conclude that a constitutional violation occurred. Accordingly, Mayor Williams and Chief Ramsey cannot be held personally liable on these claims.
E. Deprivation of Property Claims in Civil Action 022283 and Civil Action 03-767 The Abbate plaintiffs have conceded their deprivation of property claims for purposes of the immunity motions. See Tr. 4/6/04 at 46. Moreover, the Court recently granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Abbate plaintiffs’ deprivation of property without due process claims. See September 15, 2004, Memorandum Opinion and Order. Neither the defendants asserting qualified immunity in the Barham action nor the Barham plaintiffs have argued deprivation of property claims in the qualified immunity context; accordingly, the Court does not engage in a qualified immunity analysis as to any potential deprivation of property claims.
VI. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Chief
Ramsey and Assistant Chief Newsham are not protected by
52

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 166 Filed 09/24/04 Page 53 of 53 assertions of qualified immunity for the mass arrest effectuated without a prior order to disperse at Pershing Park. Mayor Williams, however, is protected from personal liability for the Pershing Park arrests by principles of qualified immunity. The Court further finds that Mayor Williams and Chief Ramsey are shielded from personal liability as to the claims related to the Vermont and K arrests, the claims regarding length of detention and use of excessive force, and the claims regarding deprivation of personal property without due process. An appropriate order accompanies this opinion. Signed: EMMET G. SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE September 24, 2004
53

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 1 of 48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM

BRIAN MCATEER

LAURY SALIGMAN MILES SWANSON

Civil Action No. 02-CV-2283 (RMU) Jury Trial Demanded

(Class Action Plaintiffs follow below)

MARY CANALES

WILLIAM DURHAM

NOAH FALK

JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ

MARK ALLAN JACKSON

CASEY LEGLER

CHARLCIE LEGLER

SALLY A. NORTON

JOHN PASSACANTANDO

JOSEPH PHELAN

NICOLE PRICHARD

MORGAN RESS

MACDONALD SCOTT

JERI WOHLBERG

LESLEY WOOD

1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 2 of 48
SAMANTHA YOUNG STEPHEN ZIMMERMAN
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs,
v. CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY in his individual and official capacities MAYOR ANTHONY WILLIAMS in his individual and official capacities DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DC METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT RICHARD MURPHY c/o Department of the Interior in his individual and official capacities PETER A. NEWSHAM in his individual and official capacities GALE A. NORTON in her official capacity ALBERTO GONZALES in his official capacity UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES in their individual and official capacities
Defendants. _______________________________________
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 3 of 48
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment; False Arrest and
Imprisonment; Conversion; Negligence) OVERVIEW
1. On September 27, 2002, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in joint action with federal law enforcement agencies (and unidentified other local or federal agencies) once again deployed its Civil Disturbance Units to disrupt political protest in the Nation's Capital; and to punish with unlawful detention and false arrest those who engaged in lawful civil dissent on this first day of a weekend of planned demonstrations, as well as those interested non-protesters or political sympathizers who approached the demonstrations to hear the political message or engage in political discussion.
2. The F.B.I. used these mass arrests as a mass intelligence gathering operation. Working in conjunction with federal law enforcement agencies, including the F.B.I., the D.C. police department compelled identification information from those it falsely arrested as a condition of the arrest, confinement and release. The F.B.I. and other local and federal law enforcement agencies collected intelligence and identification information on lawful political activists, their activities, and others who associated with or were in proximately to the demonstrations.
3. This lawsuit challenges what have become systematized mechanisms of government disruption of free speech and assembly to criminalize dissent, and in particular the tactics, deployment, and use of Civil Disturbance Units by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department acting in conjunction with federal and other law enforcement authorities, against peaceful protesters. These units, as a matter of practice and policy, employ
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 4 of 48
unconstitutional tactics to disturb, disrupt, infringe upon and criminalize constitutionally protected speech and assembly. 4. This complaint is the most recent in a series of lawsuits with a shared factual allegation: That the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department's Civil Disturbance Units maintain and execute unconstitutional tactics to disrupt lawful protest and assembly including specifically the routine use of mobile police lines to interfere with freedom of association, assembly, speech and free movement; and the use of administrative detention, false imprisonment and false arrest tactics in which the CDUs will trap protesters (and others in physical proximity) on all sides, seize, detain and arrest those trapped/seized in the absence of probable cause. These actions are accomplished through the use of paramilitary force and threat of force in order to deprive, interfere with, and deter the exercise of constitutionally protected rights 5. The earliest filed now-pending case alleging the existence of these unconstitutional disruption strategies and tactics is International Action Center, et al. v. USA, et al., CA 01-00072, which arose out of the deployment of these tactics during the Bush Inauguration demonstrations in January, 2001. The existence of these tactics was also alleged in the subsequently filed litigation 50 Years is Enough, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al., CA 01-00811, which arose out of the deployment of these tactics during the April, 2000 International Monetary Fund protests. 6. At each of these demonstrations, the D.C. MPD actions have been coordinated and executed in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, among other U.S. agencies.
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 5 of 48
7. The conduct challenged herein is neither aberrational nor the consequence of overzealous but well intentioned law enforcement. It was the implementation of a pre-designed plan to engage in unconstitutional preemptive arrests intended to round-up political activists and lock them up in the absence of probable cause. U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer testified - - before the protests - - that he and D.C. police had discussed preemptive action against protesters.
8. When one plaintiff asked why she was being arrested and whether she could please go free, one officer candidly explained that she was being arrested because she was displaying political "propaganda." Others were let out apparently based on their perceived loyalty to the government. The Washington Post reported that police lines yielded for at least one detainee when he displayed a Department of Justice identification card.
9. This complaint additionally alleges that police treat and process those (falsely) arrested in connection with targeted mass political activity differently from those who are arrested for other minor offenses. Plaintiffs were subjected to more harsh treatment in custody and were hogtied wrist-to-ankle for hours. They were subjected to intentional sleep deprivation and were not released in a matter of hours as would normally be the case, but were held into the night and overnight, for up to 30 hours. The purpose of these arrests was not to enforce laws, but to take protesters off of the streets on the first day of a weekend of planned political events.
10. The District of Columbia maintains a policy, practice and/or custom of denying to those arrested in targeted mass political round-ups the option to be released and "post and trial." This option allows an arrestee to be quickly released from jail or custody by posting
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 6 of 48
collateral and receiving a trial date on which to challenge the legality of the arrest. The MPD is advising persons caught in targeted mass political sweeps that they must remain in jail or police custody for an extended period of time or may secure release only by "post and forfeit," which means the arrestee forfeits the collateral and does not receive the opportunity to challenge the legality of the arrest. This disparate treatment, disallowing the post and trial option in the case of political round-ups, denies those arrestees equal protection under the law, and also subjects those who wish to challenge the legality of their arrest to greater pre-arraignment jail or police custody simply because they seek to exercise their constitutional right to defend against an unlawful arrest. 11. Federal agencies coordinate with the MPD in connection with mass political arrests for, among other reasons, using the arrests to collect photographs, fingerprints and other information about political activists and their associations. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, among other unidentified federal agencies, collects such data and places it in information databases and, on information and belief, disseminates and makes such personal information available to other entities. 12. Those who are forcibly arrested and deprived of their liberty suffer great fear, harm, and personal injury. The stigma of having been arrested carries on beyond the immediate personal and physical consequences of the deprivation of liberty. The collection and dissemination of personal information and political associations effects an invasion and loss of privacy, as well as a profound loss of Constitutional right to be protected when engaging in or associating with First Amendment protected activity. 13. These round-ups and mass arrests of political activists are anathema to democracy. It is
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 7 of 48
not merely remarkable that such round-ups happen repeatedly in Washington, D.C., but that policy makers emphatically ratify such blatantly unconstitutional tactics. 14. "Ain't it a thing of beauty," Chief Ramsey stated on September 27, 2002, as he reviewed the officers about to mass arrest hundreds in Pershing Park, "to see our folks up there ready to go." 15. These challenged police actions create a substantial chilling effect and deterrent to future First Amendment protected activity as the exercise of one's political rights in Washington, D.C. now carries with it the risk of arrest, of being wrongfully subject to the criminal process of the state, of being threatened with physical harm by the police, being bound with handcuffs, having one's identification and political activities be collected and recorded - - for no reason other than having political associations that have been targeted by the federal government or by the local chief of police or mayor. 16. This complaint seeks, in addition to monetary compensation, injunctive relief enjoining defendants from engaging in the challenged conduct in the future.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
question), 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and (4) (civil rights jurisdiction), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). 18. Venue is appropriately vested in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the District of Columbia is a judicial district in which all defendants reside, and, independently because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in the District of Columbia.
7

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 8 of 48
PARTIES 19. Plaintiff JEFFREY BARHAM is a law student at the George Washington University
School of Law and a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002, Mr. BARHAM, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in the vicinity of Vermont Ave. and K Street when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested Mr. BARHAM in the absence of probable cause. 20. Plaintiff MARY CANALES is a Registered Nurse, and a resident of the state of Vermont. On September 27, 2002, Dr. CANALES was in Washington, D.C. to attend a nursing conference. Dr. CANALES saw a political assembly in Pershing Park and entered the park to associate with the demonstrators and to see if there was a speaker to listen to. Dr. CANALES was peaceably and lawfully standing in the park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause. 21. Plaintiff WILLIAM DURHAM is a law student at Georgetown University Law Center and resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002, Mr. DURHAM was peaceably and lawfully protesting in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 22. Plaintiff NOAH FALK is a law student at the George Washington University Law School
8

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 9 of 48
and a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002, Mr. FALK, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 23. Plaintiff JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ is a cook at Il Radicchio in Arlington, VA, and a resident of Virginia. On September 27, 2002, Mr. GARCIA-SPITZ lawfully rode his bicycle with about sixty other cyclists to convey, by way of example, his support for, and the effectiveness of non-fossil fuel based modes of transportation. In the vicinity of Pershing Park, Mr. GARCIA-SPITZ was confronted by a police line that had popped up obstructing his movement, he was ordered off of his bike and into Pershing Park where, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 24. Plaintiff MARK JACKSON is an independent contractor with the Underground Railroad and Freedom Center, and works with a curator at the American History Museum. He is also an adjunct professor at the George Washington University, and a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002 Mr. JACKSON walked over to Pershing Park where there was a political assembly. When he tried to move on to work, Mr. JACKSON realized that without notice or warning, police had surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, and closed off all avenues of exit. He was falsely detained and arrested in the absence of probable cause.
9

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 10 of 48
25. Plaintiff CASEY LEGLER is a resident of Washington, DC. On September 27, 2002, Ms. LEGLER lawfully rode her bicycle with about sixty other cyclists to convey, by way of example, her support for, and the effectiveness of non-fossil fuel based modes of transportation. In the vicinity of Pershing Park, Ms. LEGLER was confronted by a police line that had popped up obstructing her movement, she was ordered off of her bike and into Pershing Park where, without notice or warning, police surrounded her with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause.
26. Plaintiff CHARLCIE LEGLER is a student at George Mason University and waitress at the Tabard Inn and a resident of Virginia. On September 27, 2002, Ms. LEGLER lawfully rode her bicycle with about sixty other cyclists to convey, by way of example, her support for, and the effectiveness of non-fossil fuel based modes of transportation. In the vicinity of Pershing Park, Ms. LEGLER was confronted by a police line that had popped up obstructing her movement, she was ordered off of her bike and into Pershing Park where, without notice or warning, police surrounded her with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause.
27. Plaintiff BRIAN McATEER is a high school student, a reporter for the Independent Media Center, and a resident of Maryland. He was lawfully videotaping political activity near the intersection of Vermont Avenue and K Streets, NW on the morning of September 27, 2002 when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested
10

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 11 of 48
Mr. McATEER in the absence of probable cause. As has happened to other independent media reporters with recurring frequency at demonstrations in Washington, D.C., his video camera and tape were seized by the D.C. MPD and confiscated while in the custody of the MPD. 28. Plaintiff SALLY NORTON is a Registered Nurse, an Assistant Professor at the University of Rochester School of Nursing, and a resident of the State of New York. On September 27, 2002, Dr. NORTON was in Washington, D.C. to attend a nursing conference. Dr. NORTON saw a political assembly in Pershing Park and entered the park to associate with the demonstrators and to see if there was a speaker to listen to. Dr. NORTON was peaceably and lawfully standing in the park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause. 29. Plaintiff JOHN PASSACANTANDO is the Executive Director of Greenpeace and is a resident of the District of Columbia. Mr. PASSACANTANDO was peaceably and lawfully bicycling to work on September 27, 2002 when he entered Pershing Park to observe the political activity there. Thereafter, the police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 30. Plaintiff JOSEPH PHELAN is a student at Hunter College and a resident of the state of New York. On September 27, 2002, Mr. PHELAN was peaceably and lawfully protesting in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him and
11

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 12 of 48
the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 31. Plaintiff NICOLE PRICHARD is an administrative assistant at the Arca Foundation and a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002, Ms. PRICHARD was riding her bicycle around Washington DC when she found herself amidst the group of bicycling protesters. She was forced by the police department into Pershing Park. She was peaceably and lawfully standing in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause. Her bicycle lock was destroyed and her bicycle was confiscated by the MPD. 32. Plaintiff MORGAN RESS is a photographer associated with ABC No Rio, an artists’ space in New York City, and a resident of the State of New York. On September 27, 2002, he was present in Washington, D.C. to participate in political demonstrations by photographing those events with the intention of later sharing these political images with others. Plaintiff RESS was peaceably and lawfully standing in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 33. Plaintiff LAURY SALIGMAN is an employee of Conservation International and a resident of the District of Columbia. On the morning of September 27, 2002, she had been riding her bicycle as part of her routine bicycle race fitness training. She was peaceably and lawfully pausing to rest from her training and observing nearby protesters
12

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 13 of 48
when, without notice or warning, a police line began forming near her. As she tried to exit the block, the police violently pushed her and knocked her off of her bicycle and then arrested her. 34. Plaintiff MACDONALD SCOTT is a Canadian citizen and resident of the State of New York, where he is employed as Membership Coordinator for the National Lawyers Guild. On September 27, 2002, Mr. SCOTT was peaceably and lawfully protesting in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him and the park with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of probable cause. 35. Plaintiff MILES SWANSON is a law student at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, and a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002, Mr. SWANSON, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in the vicinity of Vermont Ave. and K Street when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested Mr. SWANSON in the absence of probable cause. 36. Plaintiff JERI WOHLBERG is a graduate student in a family nurse practitioner program in Vermont, and is also a resident of that state. On September 27, 2002, Ms. WOHLBERG was in Washington, D.C. to attend a nursing conference. From her hotel, Ms. WOHLBERG saw and heard the political assembly in Pershing Park, and went across the street to the Park to participate. Ms. WOHLBERG was peaceably and lawfully standing in the public park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and
13

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 14 of 48
the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause. 37. Plaintiff LESLEY WOOD is a Canadian citizen and resident of the State of New York, where she is a doctoral candidate at Columbia University. On September 27, 2002, Ms. WOOD was peaceably and lawfully protesting in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded her and the park with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause. 38. Plaintiff SAMANTHA YOUNG is a chef at the Tabard Inn and a resident of Virginia. On September 27, 2002, Ms. YOUNG lawfully rode her bicycle with about sixty other cyclists to convey, by way of example, her support for, and the effectiveness of non-fossil fuel based modes of transportation. In the vicinity of Pershing Park, Ms. YOUNG was confronted by a police line that had popped up obstructing her movement, she was ordered off of her bike and into Pershing Park where, without notice or warning, police surrounded her with pop up police lines, boxed her in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested her in the absence of probable cause. 39. Plaintiff STEPHEN ZIMMERMAN is a law student at the George Washington University Law School and is a resident of the District of Columbia. On September 27, 2002, Mr. ZIMMERMAN, in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, was peaceably and lawfully observing political demonstrations in Pershing Park when, without notice or warning, police surrounded him with pop up police lines, boxed him in, closed off all avenues of exit, and falsely detained and arrested him in the absence of
14

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 15 of 48
probable cause. 40. Defendant CHARLES H. RAMSEY is Chief of the District of Columbia Metropolitan
Police Department. He is a policy maker for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. Chief RAMSEY was physically present at the site of the mass arrests and political roundups and, on information and belief, planned in advance and gave the orders at the scene for officers to engage in the conduct challenged herein. Mr. RAMSEY is sued in both his official and individual capacity. 41. Defendant ANTHONY WILLIAMS is the Mayor of the District of Columbia and a policy maker for the District. Mr. WILLIAMS has approved and ratified the unconstitutional conduct challenged herein. He is sued in both his official and individual capacity. 42. Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA is a municipal corporation and constitutes the local government of Washington, D.C. 43. Defendant D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT has law enforcement authority within the District of Columbia and engaged in the conduct challenged herein. 44. Defendant RICHARD MURPHY was the Acting Commander of the Special Forces Branch of the U.S. Park Police. He ordered officers under his command to enclose the Pershing Park plaintiffs in the park and to prevent them from leaving. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. 45. Defendant Assistant Chief PETER NEWSHAM, ESQ. is in charge of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), an office which is described by the MPD as “the guardian of the Metropolitan Police Department’s reputation. Assistant Chief NEWSHAM was physically present at the site of the mass arrests and political roundups
15

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 16 of 48
and, in joint action with others, participated in the giving of the orders on the scene for officers to engage in the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct challenged herein. NEWSHAM is sued in both his individual and official capacities. 46. Defendant GALE A. NORTON is head of the Department of the Interior, the federal agency encompassing the U.S. Park Police and the National Park Service, which maintains jurisdiction over certain parks and land located within the District of Columbia including Pershing Park, and is alleged to have engaged in joint action with the other defendants in the acts challenged herein. 47. Defendant ALBERTO GONZALES is U.S. Attorney General and head of the Department of Justice, the federal agency encompassing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is alleged to have engaged in joint action with the other defendants in the acts challenged herein, including but not limited to, for the purpose of collecting and disseminating intelligence information related to the plaintiffs' and demonstrators' political actions and associations. 48. Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA encompasses all federal agencies that had any role in the violations alleged herein. 49. Defendant UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES are individuals who, and agencies which, engaged in joint action with the named defendants to deprive plaintiffs of their clearly established constitutional rights. The as yet unidentified defendants engaged in the mass arrests and political roundups notwithstanding the absence of probable cause or lawful justification. The officers and their responsible supervisory chain of command are sued in their individual and official
16

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 17 of 48
capacities. STANDARDS REFLECTED IN THE MPD MASS DEMONSTRATION HANDBOOK 50. As a matter of policy, practice and custom, the MPD in joint action with federal and other
agencies, intentionally disrupts and disperses certain targeted mass political assembly and demonstrations in the absence of cause or justification. 51. As a matter of practice, custom, and informal policy the MPD routinely violates its own established standards and engages in constitutionally impermissible mass arrests and political round-ups of targeted political demonstrators and activists engaged in mass assembly and political activity and others associating with them. 52. The MPD has issued the "Metropolitan Police Department Handbook for the Management of Mass Demonstrations" (hereinafter the "Mass Demonstration Handbook"). According to the MPD, the Mass Demonstration Handbook is the standard operational guide for dealing with mass demonstrations, and the handbook establishes what the MPD claims to be proper standards, procedures and MPD obligations in that context. 53. According to the MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook, where police intend to disperse a crowd engaging in a political demonstration, the field commander shall instruct unit commanders "to issue warnings to the crowd to disperse." 54. The MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook requires as follows: [A] [1] The issuance of warnings shall be of such amplification and repetition as to be
heard by the entire assemblage. [2] Issuances shall be made by the unit commander from stationary vantage points
which are observable to the crowd, or to a large number of participants. [3] Additional warnings, where necessary, shall be given from police vehicles,
equipped with public address systems, moving around the crowd.
17

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 18 of 48
[4] The warning shall consist of an announcement citing the offenses or violations which are being committed by participants and a request or order, whichever is applicable, that the crowd disperse. Whenever possible, this warning shall be written out prior to announcement, to ensure clarity and accuracy, and consistency, if the warning is repeated.
[5] The entire warning process shall be documented by means of an audio-visual recording, if available.
[B] As a first means of dispersing a crowd under static conditions, the unit commander shall attempt to verbally persuade the crowd to disperse of its own accord by announced available exit routes.
[C][1] If, after a reasonable time following the initial warning, the crowd refuses to disperse, the unit commander shall issue a final warning ordering the participants to disperse or be subject to arrest.
[2] If, after a reasonable amount of time following the final warning, the crowd continues in its refusal to disperse, the unit commander shall direct that violators be arrested.
55. None of the plaintiffs were afforded benefit or protection of the standards described
above in the MPD-issued Mass Demonstration Handbook. The MPD violated these
standards with respect to plaintiffs and hundreds of others.
THE DEFENDANTS' PLAN FOR POLITICAL ROUNDUPS AND "PREEMPTIVE" ARRESTS 56. The MPD and other defendants had advance knowledge that there was planned a
weekend of political demonstration activity beginning on Friday, September 27, 2002.
57. Federal and local law enforcement agencies discussed and planned in advance a strategy
of "preemptive" action against protesters, as was reported in the Saturday, September 21,
2002 Washington Post.
58. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer participated in these discussions with D.C. and
federal law enforcement officials. Treating the protesters as presumptively criminal, and
indicating a willingness to act absent probable cause, Gainer explained, "I don't know
why we have to wait until after they've inflicted damage."
18

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 19 of 48
59. The local and federal plan was, in fact, implemented on September 27, 2002. As evidenced by its implementation, the plan consisted of political round-ups at multiple locations and mass arrests of hundreds of peaceful protesters and any others in their vicinity with no regard as to whether such persons were, in fact, breaking any law.
60. On September 27, 2002 District officials made it a crime to be a protester in Washington, D.C., and a crime for others to come near to hear the protesters' message or to join in.
FACTS RELATED TO THE ROUND-UPS NEAR FRANKLIN SQUARE PARK 61. On the morning of September 27, 2002 a political assembly of approximately 200 - 300
persons gathered in the area of Franklin Square Park. 62. By approximately 6 - 7 a.m. there was a substantial police presence in the area because of
the anticipated assemblage. 63. Plaintiff McATEER, who was age seventeen at the time, came to the area as an
independent journalist. McATEER was intending to videotape the anticipated political events for publication through the Independent Media Center or other press outlets. 64. McATEER had not even reached Franklin Park when he was detained by an MPD officer, who demanded to know "Are you going to the protest?" The officer searched McATEER's backpack before ultimately releasing him. There was no cause for searching McATEER's belongings, and he expressly stated that he did not consent to the search of his belongings. 65. Plaintiff SALIGMAN is a bicycle racer. She had been riding her bicycle as part of her routine racing and fitness training. At the end of her training ride when she saw some demonstrators who were peaceably walking onto the block together, she paused her bike
19

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 20 of 48
for the purpose of observing their political activities. Without notice or warning, a police line popped up. Observing this line forming, Ms. SALIGMAN decided to move on so she could shower and go to work. Without any warning, without even an order to "move back," a police officer violently pushed her and knocked her off of her bicycle. The police grabbed her by the scruff of her neck and said "we're taking you in," and arrested her. 66. Plaintiffs BARHAM and SWANSON went to the Franklin Park area in their capacities as National Lawyers Guild Legal Observers. Such legal observers are routinely at the site of political assemblages and demonstrations for the purpose of observing events, including police misconduct. 67. Plaintiffs BARHAM and SWANSON were clearly identified as Legal Observers and each wore a high-visibility green flourescent baseball cap and a green identification tag that identified each as a Legal Observer. 68. On this morning, a group of protesters moved from Franklin Park along K Street and one block north along Vermont Avenue. 69. The MPD erected a police line at the intersection of Vermont and L Streets, blocking northbound passage. 70. The MPD then erected a police line at the intersection of Vermont and K Streets, blocking southbound passage. 71. Movement eastbound and westbound was also blocked by police and/or buildings. 72. Police used force and/or threat of force to impede movement outside of this area. 73. The area within the police lines became a detention zone, within which scores of demonstrators, observers, and bystanders were thus seized and arrested within the
20

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 21 of 48
meaning of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, without probable cause. 74. Plaintiffs BARHAM, MCATEER and SWANSON were boxed-in by the police lines and had no avenue to exit the scene. 75. The police issued no directives other than to "move back" - a directive that was often issued simultaneously with a blow from a baton. 76. Riot police used their batons offensively and aggressively, yelling at protesters to "move back." Police crammed the detainees into a smaller and smaller area, closing their perimeter with force and violence. This created an atmosphere of increasing fear, provocation and tension. 77. At one point, a storefront window broke and shattered when the police, wielding their batons offensively, pushed a trapped and tightly compressed group of arrestees into the window. The police had ignored the arrestees' pleas to stop the compression. 78. At no time did plaintiffs BARHAM, McATEER or SWANSON fail to obey a police order. 79. After surrounding plaintiffs BARHAM, McATEER and SWANSON with police lines, the police then without probable cause or lawful justification, arrested BARHAM, McATEER and SWANSON along with hundreds of others, mostly political activists and demonstrators. 80. An MPD officer approached Plaintiff BARHAM, who was wearing legal observer identification. The officer asked if BARHAM was a law student and then threatened BARHAM that his arrest should prevent him from being admitted to the bar.
21

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 22 of 48
81. At no point did any MPD officer do any of the following, as is required by the MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook: a. issue a warning for the political demonstration or for others in proximity to the political assemblage to disperse; b. issue any warnings to disperse through the use of amplification and with such repetition for the entire assemblage to hear; c. issue any warning to disperse from stationary vantage points observable to the crowd or to a large number of participants; d. issue additional warnings given from police vehicles, equipped with public address systems, moving about the crowd. e. make an announcement citing the offenses or violations which were allegedly being committed and issue a request or order that individuals disperse.
82. The MPD prevented dispersal through the actual and threatened use of force, and through unyielding police lines.
83. At no time was there probable cause to arrest plaintiffs BARHAM, McATEER, SALIGMAN or SWANSON.
84. This unconstitutional mass arrest and round-up was directed and approved by D.C. and MPD policy makers. MPD policy makers and high-ranking officials present during the mass arrest included Chief of Police Charles Ramsey, Sgt. Joseph Gentile, and Lt. Jeffrey Herold, among others.
FACTS RELATING TO THE ROUND-UPS OF PERSONS LAWFULLY RIDING BICYCLES IN SUPPORT OF ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUEL USAGE
85. On September 27, 2002 approximately sixty to seventy persons met at Union Station for the purpose of engaging in a lawful bicycle ride and to demonstrate, by way of example,
22

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 23 of 48
their support for alternatives to oil and gasoline consumption and the pollution caused by such fuels. 86. By law and regulation, bicycles are allowed to traverse the roadways in the District of Columbia. 87. At approximately 8:30 a.m. on September 27, 2002 plaintiffs JORGE GARCIA-SPITZ, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, and SAMANTHA YOUNG met at Union Station. 88. It was the intention of plaintiffs GARCIA-SPITZ, LEGLER, LEGLER and YOUNG to embark upon this lawful bicycle ride from Union Station over to the Freedom Plaza area, where they understood a political demonstration was to take place, and from there to go their separate ways, to work or school or elsewhere. 89. The police were aware of this well publicized bike ride, and they maintained a substantial presence in the vicinity of Union Station. 90. At approximately 8:30 a.m., the bicyclists began their ride. None of the law enforcement officers directed the bike riders to not ride their bikes, and the police did not obstruct the start of this lawful and political endeavor. 91. As soon as the bike ride started, however, mobile police lines popped up - - consisting of officers on bicycles and on motorcycles and in motor vehicles - - surrounding these plaintiffs and the bicyclists on all sides. 92. By virtue of their police lines, the police controlled the movement of the bicyclists. When police wanted to stop the bicyclists, the front line of officers would wave and direct that those following behind them should stop. Those who sought to leave the bike ride by
23

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 24 of 48
exiting through the side mobile police lines would be prevented from doing so. In this regard, the bicyclists were already seized by the police as they were riding in a mobile detention zone. However, the presence of the mobile police lines was interpreted by some as an escort and it did not interfere with plaintiffs GARCIA-SPITZ, LEGLER, LEGLER and YOUNG's original and lawful intention to traverse the roadways peaceably and lawfully upon their bikes. 93. The bicyclists obeyed all traffic laws during this bike ride, including obeying all directives from the police. 94. There was no attempt by the police to obstruct the bike ride as it proceeded, nor did the police suggest that there was even any problem. Some of the cyclists even misinterpreted the police escort as a measure of support or success. 95. As the bike ride entered its final leg near the Freedom Plaza and Pershing Park area the cyclists were confronted by a stationary police line in their way. 96. The police forced the bicyclists into Pershing Park which is across from Freedom Plaza and which held about 300 demonstrators at that time. The police ordered them off of their bicycles. The cyclists complied, as this was about where they intended to terminate their ride, and many initially thought there was nothing wrong. 97. However, a few minutes later when plaintiffs CASEY LEGLER and her partner SAMANTHA YOUNG attempted to leave Pershing Park because they had to go to work later that day, they were told by the police that "no one is allowed to leave the park." 98. The police had surrounded these plaintiffs and the park, using police lines that had popped up on all sides, and refused to let anyone leave the park.
24

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 25 of 48
99. One officer told CASEY LEGLER and YOUNG that they were not allowed to leave because their bikes were displaying "propaganda." The officer told them that they could leave if they removed the propaganda, which consisted in part of a sign displaying a women's symbol. They complied with the officer's request removing their First Amendment protected materials. The officer took their signs and destroyed them, and then continued to refuse to let them leave.
100. CASEY LEGLER and YOUNG approached an MPD Lieutenant and asked why they were not being allowed to leave and if they were being arrested.
101. The Lieutenant advised that "At this point in time Ma'am, we are just following orders." 102. The defendants refused to allow plaintiffs GARCIA-SPITZ, LEGLER, LEGLER and
YOUNG to disperse or leave the park and subsequently falsely arrested each in the manner described below. FACTS RELATING TO THE ROUND-UPS OF PERSONS IN PERSHING PARK 103. Demonstrators began gathering in parkland near the intersection of 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, between approximately 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. on September 27, 2002. 104. Demonstrators had planned to engage to protest in Freedom Plaza, which is adjacent to Pershing Park. However, police officers directed demonstrators into Pershing Park and the political assemblage gathered there. 105. Pershing Park is a public forum under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 106. Plaintiffs MARY CANALES and SALLY NORTON are each registered nurses who were
25

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 26 of 48
in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of attending a nursing conference, "Advancing Nursing Practice Excellence: State of the Science," which was being held at the Marriott Hotel that is near Pershing Park. 107. Drs. CANALES and NORTON decided to leave the Marriott Hotel to get breakfast, which they did at approximately 8:30 a.m. They were aware, from news reports, that there were demonstrations anticipated in Washington, D.C. that day, and they saw that demonstrators were gathered at Pershing Park. After picking up coffee, they entered the park in order to listen to any political speakers that might be giving a speech there. 108. There was an evident police presence, but no indication to Doctors CANALES or NORTON that there was a problem. They passed by the police and entered without event. 109. At about the same time, plaintiff JERI WOHLBERG, a graduate student in nursing who was presenting research at the conference at the Marriott, decided that she wanted to participate in the demonstration in Pershing Park. She knew of the demonstration from the media coverage and wished to support its political message. She could hear and see the demonstration from the Marriott. She, too, entered the park passing by the police who were not indicating any imminent police round-up or similar problem. Ms. WOHLBERG met up with plaintiffs CANALES and NORTON in the park. 110. Plaintiffs WOHLBERG, CANALES and NORTON all observed what was occurring in Pershing park at that time, just before the mass arrest and political round-up: dancing, singing and assembly. Some people were rhythmically beating drums. Many protesters held signs protesting corporate globalization and greed. Other signs advocated for peace, against war in Iraq, and bore messages such as "bread not bombs." Clearly it was a
26

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 27 of 48
gathering of individuals engaging in political speech, assembly and camaraderie. 111. At a time between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., the bicyclists were forced into the Park, and
shortly thereafter police lines were erected without any notice or warning. Many of those surrounded had no immediate awareness that they had been trapped and seized. 112. A session of the nursing conference was set to begin at 9:45 a.m. CANALES, NORTON and WOHLBERG found, however, that they had been surrounded by these police lines that had silently popped up on all sides. They found unyielding police lines in every direction, with many officers in intimidating, black, full riot gear. They attempted to leave and asked permission to leave of no less than five separate officers. They explained they had to attend the conference, and displayed their conference tote bags. 113. This was similar to the experiences that other plaintiffs who happened also to be in the park were having. 114. Plaintiff WILLIAM DURHAM went to Pershing Park as a protester. He arrived at the park, and observed a drum circle there with people cheering and chanting. Soon thereafter, he and others realized that police lines had popped up on all sides. The police refused to allow DURHAM to leave. 115. Plaintiff NOAH FALK is a law student at the George Washington University School of Law. He was in Pershing Park in his capacity as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer, and was clearly identifiable as such based on the flourescent green Legal Observer cap and green badge he was displaying. FALK was lawfully standing in the park when he found himself surrounded by police lines. 116. Plaintiff MARK JACKSON is an independent contractor with the Underground Railroad
27

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 28 of 48
and Freedom Center, and works with a curator at the American History Museum. He was not protesting, but had walked over to the park and planned to head to work when he found himself surrounded by police lines that had quietly popped up. He asked to be allowed past the police line, but the police refused him passage, explaining "we can't let you out." 117. Plaintiff JOHN PASSACANTANDO had been riding his bicycle to work that morning to avoid what had been predicted to be difficult traffic. He stopped near Pershing Park to observe the protest. Thereafter he, too, found himself surrounded by police lines on all sides with police refusing to let him leave. PASSACANTANDO asked no less than a dozen officers at different locations to be allowed to leave and go on his way, but he was told repeatedly that he was not allowed to leave. A number of the officers advised that they were acting under "orders." 118. Plaintiff JOSEPH PHELAN is a student at Hunter College in New York, and was present in Pershing Park to participate in the protests. When he sought to leave the park, MPD officers told him he could not leave. He asked one officer “Am I being detained” and was told “no.” When he then said, “So we can leave,” the officer stated “If you try to leave, you’ll be arrested.” 119. Plaintiff NICOLE PRICHARD was riding her bicycle around the City when she found herself amidst the group of protesters on bicycles. She was almost immediately thereafter forced into Pershing Park, where she found herself surrounded by police lines on all sides and, when she sought to leave, was told by an MPD officer “no one goes in and no one goes out unless on that [mass arrest] bus.”
28

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 29 of 48
120. Plaintiff MORGAN RESS is an artist who works with ABC No Rio, an artist space on the lower east side of Manhattan, NY. RESS was in Pershing Park as a demonstrator and as a photographer and artist. He heard the sound of protest drums in the park, entered the park, and soon found that the police had formed lines around the park. He asked multiple officers if he could please leave, and each refused to let him go. Some officers were silent, others told him to go to another police line. When he did so he would either be directed to go to yet another police line or would be met with silence. One officer explained, "Our orders are no one leaves the park."
121. Plaintiff MACDONALD SCOTT is employed as the Membership Coordinator for the National Lawyers Guild in New York City. He was peacefully protesting in the park when he found himself surrounded on all sides by police lines. He requested of at least five police officers that they allow him to leave the park, and each time was refused.
122. Plaintiff LESLEY WOOD is a doctoral candidate at Columbia University. She was peacefully protesting in Pershing Park when without notice or warning the police formed lines around the park. She requested of at least five police officers that they allow her to leave the park, and each time was refused.
123. Plaintiff STEPHEN ZIMMERMAN is a law student at George Washington University Law School and was a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer present in Pershing Park when police surrounded the park. He tried to leave, but was not allowed.
124. At no time did any of plaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM, FALK, GARCIA-SPITZ, JACKSON, LEGLER, LEGLER, NORTON, PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD, RESS, SCOTT, WOHLBERG, WOOD, YOUNG, or ZIMMERMAN fail to
29

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 30 of 48
obey a police order. 125. The police actions in the vicinity of Pershing Park were executed by MPD police, U.S.
Park Police under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, and other as-yetunidentified law enforcement agencies and officers. 126. After surrounding plaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM, FALK, GARCIA-SPITZ, JACKSON, LEGLER, LEGLER, NORTON, PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD, RESS, SCOTT, WOHLBERG, WOOD, YOUNG and ZIMMERMAN with police lines, the police then without probable cause or lawful justification, arrested each of them along with hundreds of others, mostly political activists and demonstrators. 127. At no point did any MPD officer do any of the following, as is required by the MPD Mass Demonstration Handbook: a. issue a warning for the political demonstration or for others in proximity to the
political assemblage to disperse; b. issue any warnings to disperse through the use of amplification and with such
repetition for the entire assemblage to hear; c. issue any warning to disperse from stationary vantage points observable to the
crowd or to a large number of participants; d. issue additional warnings given from police vehicles, equipped with public
address systems, moving about the crowd. e. make an announcement citing the offenses or violations which were allegedly
being committed and issue a request or order that individuals disperse. 128. The MPD and other police prevented dispersal through the actual and threatened use of
force, and through unyielding police lines. 129. Captain MURPHY ordered U.S. Park Police forces “to enclose the demonstrators . . . in
30

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 31 of 48
Pershing Park with Metropolitan Police.” MURPHY also ordered and advised U.S. Park Police forces to “keep the crowd inside Pershing Park. We’re not going to allow them to come through the police line. We’re working with [D.C.] Metropolitan [Police] on this.” 130. At no time was there probable cause to arrest any of plaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM, FALK, GARCIA-SPITZ, JACKSON, LEGLER, LEGLER, NORTON, PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD, RESS, SCOTT, WOHLBERG, WOOD, YOUNG or ZIMMERMAN. 131. The police used pop up police lines to unlawfully seize and detain hundreds of political activists and those who associated with them or were within physical proximity of their political assemblage. The police then executed a new phase of the police plan. 132. Riot police used their batons offensively and aggressively, yelling at protesters to "move in, move in!" and telling them "You cannot leave, move, move!" Police crammed the detainees into a smaller and smaller area, closing their perimeter with force and violence. This created an atmosphere of increasing fear, provocation and tension. 133. It appeared to some that the police were trying to provoke a violent reaction from those they were abusing. 134. Protesters responded by yelling at each other "Do what they say!" and "Cover your head!" 135. Police continued pushing protesters with violence and force. At points the perimeter was collapsing inward with such a fierce pace that different officers were ordering people to move in different directions. 136. All of the plaintiffs obeyed the police's unlawful orders. 137. The arrestees were tightly compacted in the Southwest corner of the Park.
31

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 32 of 48
138. Small groups of MPD officers began a process of crossing the police line, grabbing an individual, dragging that individual to the outside of the police line, violently throwing him or her face down to the ground, using three of four officers to exert force upon the non-resisting arrestee, handcuffing him or her, and placing him or her on a bus.
139. This happened to the first four or five people in a row, until the most violent officers were restrained by other officers and told to calm down. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS (proposed class to encompass those falsely arrested in Pershing Park)
140. The proposed class is: All persons who were arrested on September 27, 2002 as part of the mass arrests of persons that took place in Pershing Park.
141. The proposed class and their claims, satisfy the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3). 142. The class of persons subject to the mass arrest in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002,
which is composed of more than 400 persons, is too numerous for joinder. 143. These individuals' claims that their First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and
their common law rights against false arrest and false imprisonment were violated raise common questions of law and fact. 144. By arresting virtually all of the participants in, and onlookers at, a peaceful political assemblage without probable cause or lawful justification, defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the class. 145. According to Peter Lavalee, the D.C. Corporation Counsel's communication director as quoted in the Washington City Paper, "We no-papered everything in Pershing Park. We did not feel in the cases that came from Pershing Park – that the witness statements and
32

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 33 of 48
the evidence that we had [presented] probable cause that a crime was committed and/or that a specific individual committed a crime."1 146. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of this class, as they were lawfully present in Pershing Park when they were arrested without basis on April 15 as part of the same police sweep. 147. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the members of this class.
FACTS COMMON TO THE PROCESSING OF ALL PLAINTIFFS 148. The plastic handcuffs placed on many individuals were excessively tight. All plaintiffs
experienced pain, and many experienced swelling and numbness from the handcuffs. 149. Arrested individuals were held on busses for many hours, with their hands handcuffed
behind their backs. 150. Sequential busloads of arrested individuals were eventually taken off the bus and brought
into the gymnasium of the Institute for Police Science at Blue Plains. They were then shackled and hog-tied with their right wrists handcuffed to their left ankles. Some were left in this position for many hours. 151. Inside the gymnasium, law enforcement officials photographed the individuals arrested. Photographs were taken of some arrestees that were in addition to their "mug shots." Some demonstrators with political statements on their clothing were singled out and
1 Jason Cherkis, "Boss Hogtie: Police Chief Charles Ramsey had a plan for the more than 400 people in Pershing Park last September: Arrest them all, detain them for hours, and then tie them wrist to ankle for 12 hours. He says he'll do it again," The Washington City Paper, January 17-23, 2003 at 20, 23.
33

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 34 of 48
photographed with greater scrutiny. 152. The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose agents
sometimes displayed FBI identification, participated in this mass collection of data. This data has been recorded and collected in databases, record-keeping or other information systems and, on information and belief, has also been disseminated or made available to unknown agencies and entities. 153. The MPD maintains a policy, practice or custom of treating persons arrested in connection with mass political arrests differently than others who have been arrested for similar minor offenses. 154. The MPD maintains a policy, practice and custom of preventive detention for targeted persons or groups engaged in political activity. By way of example, documents secured through subpoena in International Action Center, et al. v. U.S.A., et al. include production notes for an MPD training video related to mass demonstrations, in which the section on "Police Tactics and Issues" includes "Tactics - Locking up the troublemakers on the first night." 155. The MPD maintains a policy, practice and custom of holding targeted political arrestees who have been (falsely) charged only with minor offenses for extended periods of time, in order to take them off of the streets and prevent them from engaging in further political dissent on subsequent days of demonstration, and to induce fatigue through sleep deprivation. By way of example, documents secured through subpoena in International Action Center, et al. v. United States of America, et al. include production notes for an MPD training video related to mass demonstrations, in which the section on "Police
34

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 35 of 48
Tactics and Issues" includes "Tactics - Sleep deprivation tactics." 156. The MPD ordinarily allows qualified persons to "post and trial" - - which means that the
arrestee can post collateral in order to secure prompt release and can return for a future trial date on which the arrestee may challenge the legality of her arrest. 157. However, similarly situated persons as part of a mass political arrests or roundups are refused this option, to "post and trial." Instead, it is the policy, practice and/or custom of the MPD that targeted political arrestees are offered only the option to "post and forfeit" collateral. Police advise targeted political arrestees that, should they opt to challenge the legality of their arrest, they will not be released for an extended period of days. The period of threatened additional confinement and jail ranges arbitrarily from between two days to a week or more. 158. Plaintiffs were confined by defendants into the middle of the night or until the following day, for approximate periods of time ranging from no less than 14 hours to over 30 hours.
Unconstitutional Policies of the MPD 159. The MPD, and those federal agencies which act jointly with the MPD and its "Civil
Disturbance Units," maintain the policy, practice and/or custom of abusing their state authority to disturb and disrupt targeted civil political assembly and mass demonstrations. 160. The CDUs also accomplish their disruption strategy through their established practice and policy of preventive detention of political activists, in which the CDUs will trap, seize and arrest groups of protesters by closing off all avenues of exit with riot gear clad police. 161. The MPD and its CDUs maintain the policy, practice and/or custom of deploying police lines where circumstances do not justify such deployment and for the purpose of
35

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 36 of 48
disrupting First Amendment protected assembly, speech and petition activities. 162. These riot squads use force and the threat of force to enforce this preventive detention, in
which they arrest and hold detainees for a significant period of time. Absent intervening circumstances, the detainees will be placed on mass arrest busses and held for significant periods of time, typically overnight. 163. Preventive detention signifies that individuals are being arrested not for engaging in illegal activity but for engaging in political activity, and constitutes a severe violation of First and Fourth Amendment rights when applied against political demonstrators. 164. The use of disruption and disturbance tactics by the MPD is an established custom, policy and practice of the MPD, as evidenced by the repeated use, the approval of, and the acquiescence in the use of such tactics by policy making officials of the District of Columbia. 165. DC policy maker Mayor Anthony Williams has stated his approval of the MPD's tactics, referring to arrest tactics of the MPD, as executed on April 15, 2000 (and repeated on Inauguration Day 2001 and on September 27, 2002) as "preventative" and "proactive." Preventive detention and false arrest, whether referred to as "preventative arrest" or "proactive arrest," when applied to a targeted group of persons seeking to exercise constitutionally protected rights, in the absence of probable cause, is unconstitutional. 166. MPD policy makers approve of these tactics, which they have used repeatedly, and which are the subject of pending litigation related to their use on Inauguration Day (International Action Center et al. v. United States et al., 01-CV-72) and on April 15, 2000 (Fifty Years Is Enough et al. v. District of Columbia et al., 01-CV-811). In the
36

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 37 of 48
alternative, MPD policy makers have acquiesced to these unconstitutional tactics. 167. On September 27, 2002, the CDUs and other MPD officers were deployed for these
unconstitutional purposes. 168. On September 27, 2002, the Department of the Interior deployed U.S. Park Police to act
jointly with the MPD in carrying out this unconstitutional disruption strategy. Additional other individual officers and outside agencies which have yet to be identified also engaged in the same joint action. 169. The MPD maintains the policy, practice and/or custom of processing and treating disparately those persons arrested for minor offenses in connection with political mass arrests or round-ups. The disparate processing and treatment includes confinement for extended period of time including often overnight for alleged minor offenses, and the failure to offer political mass arrestees the post and trial option. 170. The above-referenced policies and customs, and also the failure to properly train its officers, constitute deliberate indifference on the part of policymakers of the District of Columbia to the constitutional rights of protesters in the Nation's Capital, as well as all those who would associate with such protesters or report on them as media. 171. The actions of the above-referenced defendants violated the following clearly established and well settled federal constitutional rights: a. Freedom from the unreasonable seizure of one's person; b. Freedom from government disruption of, interference with, or retaliation for,
engagement in free speech, assembly, association, petition and free press activities. 172. The challenged actions and omissions constitute deliberate indifference on the part of the
37

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 38 of 48
District of Columbia, the federal defendants and other defendants to the constitutional rights of protesters in the Nation's Capital. 173. As a direct and proximate result of the acts or omissions of the defendants identified in this complaint and the other unidentified agents and agencies acting jointly, each of the plaintiffs has suffered monetary and non-monetary harm including deprivation of constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, loss of liberty, as well as physical harm, emotional pain and suffering.
Ongoing Injury to Plaintiffs 174. Plaintiffs all suffer continued adverse and deterrent effects from the above-referenced
conduct. 175. Defendants' illegal conduct subjects protesters and observers and all those who associate
with protesters to unconstitutional obstacles to the exercise of their rights. There is an intended, ongoing and continued deterrent effect caused by defendant's conduct, in that protesters and others must face the reasonable fear that merely by assembling and exercising their right to free speech (or to listen to speech), they will risk being subject to the unlawful tactics of the MPD and federal law enforcement, the risk of false imprisonment and false arrest and preventive detention, as well as the exposure to force and the threatened use of force by officers working with the mobile police lines. 176. Plaintiffs intend to, in the future, engage in or associate with First Amendment protected activities in Washington, D.C. and seek injunctive relief to prevent future unconstitutional disruption.
38

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 39 of 48
CLAIMS COUNT I False Arrests at Vermont Avenue (First Amendment; Fourth Amendment; False Imprisonment; Fourteenth Amendment) 177. Paragraphs 1 - 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 178. Defendants' actions in deploying law enforcement units to disrupt First Amendment protected activity and subjecting plaintiffs BARHAM, McATEER, SALIGMAN AND SWANSON to false imprisonment and arrest violated the Fourth Amendment rights of those individuals seized, constituted false imprisonment and false arrest under District of Columbia law, and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of each of the aforementioned plaintiffs.
COUNT II False Arrests at Pershing Park (First Amendment; Fourth Amendment; False Imprisonment; Fourteenth Amendment) (Individual and class claims) 179. Paragraphs 1 - 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 180. Defendants' actions in deploying law enforcement units to disrupt First Amendment protected activity and subjecting plaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM, FALK, JACKSON, GARCIA-SPITZ, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, NORTON, PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD, RESS, SCOTT, WOHLBERG, WOOD, YOUNG and ZIMMERMAN and those SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE PROPOSED CLASS to false imprisonment and arrest violated the Fourth Amendment rights of those individuals seized, constituted false imprisonment and false arrest under District of Columbia law, and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of each of the
39

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 40 of 48
aforementioned plaintiffs and class members.
COUNT III (Equal Protection Clause; Due Process Clause; First Amendment; Fourth Amendment) 181. Paragraphs 1 - 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 182. Defendants' actions in processing and treating differently those adult persons, including
all adult plaintiffs, who are arrested for minor offenses in connection with mass political arrests violate the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of those so deprived.
COUNT IV (conversion; trespass to chattel) 183. Paragraphs 1 - 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 184. Upon arresting plaintiff McATEER, defendant District of Columbia seized plaintiff’s video camera and related items and never returned the video camera and related items and converted them to its own use. 185. Upon arresting plaintiff SCOTT, defendant District of Columbia destroyed plaintiff’s backpack by cutting through the arm straps, thereby converting it to its own use. 186. Plaintiffs CHARLCIE LEGLER and GARCIA-SPITZ had lawfully locked their bicycles outside of Pershing Park prior to entering and their subsequent arrest. Defendant District of Columbia destroyed their bicycle locks and damaged their bicycles in the subsequent seizure of their bicycles, converting the bicycle locks to its own use and committing a trespass to the bicycles.
Count V (negligence and negligent supervision)
40

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 41 of 48
187. Paragraphs 1 - 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 188. The as-yet-unidentified individual officers and supervisors involved in these unlawful
arrests had the duty to exercise reasonable care in the conduct towards plaintiffs. 189. The individual supervisors, including Chief Ramsey and his downward chain-of-
command had the duty to exercise appropriate command authority in their supervision of their subordinates. 190. Individual officers and supervisors were both negligent in the exercise of these duties of care owed to plaintiffs. 191. As a direct and proximate cause of these defendants' negligence, plaintiffs suffered the harms complained of herein.
Count VI (deliberate indifference to constitutional rights by supervisors, actionable under 42 U.S.C.
§1983) 192. Paragraphs 1 - 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 193. The individual supervisors, including Chief Ramsey and his downward chain-of-
command had the duty to exercise appropriate command authority in their supervision of their subordinates. They failed to exercise appropriate command authority relating to the officers who engaged in the unconstitutional deprivations complained of herein. 194. The individual supervisors, including Chief Ramsey and his downward chain-ofcommand had the duty to intervene to prevent or halt unlawful and/or unconstitutional police conduct related to the Inaugural Parade. They failed to intervene to prevent the unlawful and unconstitutional deprivations complained of herein.
41

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 42 of 48
195. Additionally, and in the alternative, the individual supervisors, including Chief Ramsey and his downward chain-of-command directed, encouraged and/or participated in the unlawful and unconstitutional conduct complained of herein.
196. These actions and omissions constituted gross negligence and deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.
197. As a direct and proximate result of the said acts or omissions of the individual supervisors, the plaintiffs have suffered monetary and non-monetary harm including the deprivation of constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, physical and emotional pain and suffering, as well as injuries described elsewhere in the complaint. Count VII - Claims Against Defendant MURPHY
(claims arising under the U.S. Constitution, applicable as Bivens claims and in the alternate under 42 U.S.C. §1983)
198. Defendant MURPHY is expressly excluded from claims arising in connection with existing Counts I through VI. The only claims asserted against MURPHY are those set forth in Claim VII herein.
199. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 176 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein.
200. MURPHY became involved in these arrests at the request of the Metropolitan Police Department.
201. MURPHY’s actions in deploying U.S. Park Police to disrupt and subject plaintiffs CANALES, DURHAM, FALK, JACKSON, GARCIA-SPITZ, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, NORTON, PASSACANTANDO, PHELAN, PRICHARD, RESS,
42

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 43 of 48
SCOTT, WOHLBERG, WOOD, YOUNG AND ZIMMERMAN, and those SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE CLASS, to false arrest violated the First and Fourth Amendment rights of those individuals seized. 202. At no time did MURPHY even make an assessment as to whether probable cause existed to arrest the hundreds of class members in Pershing Park. MURPHY has testified that “[i]t was not my position to identify probable cause.” 203. MURPHY knew that arrests for demonstrating without a permit violated protocol in the absence of notice, opportunity to disperse and refusal to disperse. He turned a blind eye to the unconstitutional and unlawful nature of the conduct in which he participated, and in which he ordered others to engage. 204. MURPHY had no knowledge from which to objectively and reasonably believe that the hundreds of people inside Pershing Park had failed to obey an order. MURPHY did not know even what specific order the class members ostensibly disobeyed, and he did not make any inquiries either. He had no knowledge as to in whose presence such alleged offenses may have ostensibly been committed, and he made no inquiries to secure this information. 205. MURPHY also knew that the composition of the group assembled or present inside the park was in flux, as he observed people coming and going into the park prior to the encirclement and arrest. 206. It was objectively unreasonable for MURPHY to believe or claim that probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff class. 207. Yet, MURPHY’s officers formed portions of a series of interconnected police lines that
43

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 44 of 48
surrounded Pershing Park, deprived the plaintiff class of the freedom to leave and effected their mass arrest. 208. MURPHY caused and participated in the unlawful and unconstitutional conduct complained of herein, specifically the false arrest of the Barham class and disruption of First Amendment protected activity. 209. Independently, and in the alternative, MURPHY’s actions constituted deliberate indifference to the rights of the Barham class. 210. In the alternative, MURPHY conspired with and/or engaged in joint action with the District of Columbia, and with the encouragement of District officials who exercised the coercive power of the District of Columbia through MURPHY in the execution of the false arrests and constitutional violations. 211. MURPHY is sued for constitutional torts pursuant to Bivens and, in the alternate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acting in concert with District officials to deprive the individuals in the Barham class of their civil rights. 212. As a direct and proximate result of the acts or omissions of MURPHY, the Barham class and its representatives have suffered monetary and non-monetary harm including the deprivation of constitutional rights under the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 213. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant the
following relief: A. Entry of a declaratory judgment that the disruption and preventive arrest
44

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 45 of 48
tactics of the MPD and its Civil Disturbance Units and law enforcement authorities constitute violations of the First and Fourth Amendments; B. Entry of a permanent injunction to enjoin and prohibit defendants from executing the unlawful disruption and preventive arrest tactics as are employed by the MPD and its Civil Disturbance Units and law enforcement authorities in conjunction with federal law enforcement including but not limited to the unconstitutional use of pop-up police lines and the unconstitutional boxing-in tactic; C. Entry of a permanent injunction mandating that the MPD offer the "post and trial" option to those persons arrested for minor offenses in connection with mass political arrests as are offered to non-political arrestees, and ordering the MPD to provide in writing to all mass protest arrestees a clear and accurate statement of their rights to release, and ordering the MPD to make periodic reports to plaintiffs and the Court documenting that this injunction is being abided by; D. Entry of a permanent injunction barring the MPD from subjecting to a more harsh and/or longer period of processing and confinement to those persons arrested for minor offenses in conjunction with mass political arrests, and ordering the MPD to maintain written documentation as to the period of confinement before release of all mass protest arrestees, as compared to all arrestees; E. Entry of a permanent injunction barring the MPD from threatening or
45

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 46 of 48
actually jailing for longer periods those persons arrested in connection with mass political arrests who wish to challenge the legality of their arrest by seeking a trial date (as distinguished from those who choose to forfeit collateral); F. Entry of an order that all arrest records, including all photographs, fingerprints and other identification or descriptive information regarding plaintiffs be sealed; that disclosure be made in writing to plaintiffs and the Court as to all entities and agencies to which such material has been disseminated and by whom gathered; and that all records disseminated be collected and sealed, including all copies of such disseminated records that may have been subject to further dissemination by others; G. Entry of a permanent injunction barring the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other federal agencies from taking or accessing identification and other information compelled by political arrests by local law enforcement authorities; H. Compensatory damages against the District of Columbia and the unknown named police departments for violations of federal rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in an amount appropriate to the proof adduced at trial; I. Compensatory damages against the District of Columbia, for violations of common law rights, pursuant to respondeat superior, in an amount appropriate to the proof adduced at trial; J. Compensatory damages and punitive damages against Ramsey, Williams,
46

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 47 of 48
and the unknown named police officers sued in their individual capacities for violations of federal rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (if they are D.C. or state actors or in joint action with state or D.C. actors) or pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (if they are federal agents or in joint action with federal agents) in an amount appropriate to the proof adduced at trial; K. Compensatory damages and punitive damages against MURPHY for violation of federal rights pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unnamed Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and, in the alternative, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in an amount appropriate to the proof adduced at trial. L. Compensation by the responsible parties for the value of property that was damaged or destroyed or converted; M. Compensation by the responsible parties for negligence and negligent supervision; N. An award of plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the Equal Access to Justice Act, and any other applicable statute or rule of law; and O. Such other and further relief, including all appropriate equitable relief, as to the Court may seem just and proper. PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE
47

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMDFocuDmoecnutm2e1n5t 21F6iledFi0le7d/2097/2/2090/505 Page 48 of 48 Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Carl Messineo (#450033) Mara Verheyden-Hilliard (#430031) PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE, INC. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD MASS DEFENSE COMMITTEE 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 607 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 530-5630 (202) 530-5634 - facsimile Counsel for Plaintiffs
48

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 296 Filed 12/22/06 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 295-2 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAYMING CHANG, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES, et al. Defendants.
JEFFREY BARHAM, et al. Plaintiffs,
v. CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

*

*

*

Civil No. 02-02010 (EGS}{AK)

*

*

*

*

*

*

Civil No. 02-02283 (EGS)(AK)

*

*

*

CONSENT ORDER Upon consideration of the Seventh Consent Motion of Defendant Newsham for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees, the pleadings and the record herein, and for good cause shown, it is this Court's finding, pursuant to D,C, Code § 5-115.04, that payment ofinterim attorney fees and costs in the amount of$13,245,82, for representation of defendant Peter Newsham by Robert E. Deso, Esq. for the period from January 1, 2006
H;UIDeso\1302.0)V;36 N-cwslIam\Pl-cadlng5\7tbOn!<:rCon..''VlotfQrAppv!Pymnt.wpd

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 296 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 295-2 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 2 of 2

r-
V)'I
thro~h October 3~06 in this litigation is reasonable, and it is therefore, this _ day
l)t of CCI/r.)l 2006 hereby

ORDER.ED that the District of Columbia shall pay the sum of $13,245.82 to

Robert E. Deso, counsel for defendant Newsham, for legal fees and costs, pursuant to

D.C. Code § 5-115.04, for legal representation h I from Janua~

ugh

i
October 31, 2006.

mmet G. Sullivan, Judge . United States District Court for the
District of Columbia
Copies To:
cc: Thomas L. Koger, Esquire Senior Litigation Counsel - Equity Section I 441 4th Street, N.W., Sixth Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001
Robert E. Deso, Esquire Deso, Buckley & Stien, P.C. 1828 L Street, NW. Suite 660 Washington, D.C. 20036

H:\RDcso\IJD2.05036 ;-..rcIV5ham\Pkadill.gs\7IhOrdcrCoIIMotforApp)'!i'ymllt.wpO 2

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 301 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 300 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIlE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED
J.£l,N 2 2 2007

JEFFREY BARHAM, et aL,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et aL, )

)

Defendants.

)

------------------------)

NANCY MAYER WH'lTIlNGl"DN, Ci.lP.K ~.s. DISTRiCT COUJ=lI
Case No. 02-2283 (EGS)(AK)

CONSENT ORDER

Pursuant to Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), plaintiffs

seek to depose Defendant District ofColumbia ("District") upon the following area of

inquiry:

The findings and recommendations made in the March 24,2004 D.C. Council's "Report on Investigation ofthe Metropolitan Police Department's Policy and Practice in Handling Demonstrations in the District of Columbia ['March 24, 2004 Report']" and the December 1, 2004 Committee Report from Kathy Patterson, Chairperson, Committee on the Judiciary on "Bill 15-698. the 'First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of2004'" ['December 1, 2004 Report']. The need for, and basis for, the District of Columbia's enactment of the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of2004.

In response, the District moved for a protective order providing that it not

be required to produce such a deponent, on grounds oflegislative immunity and

separation of powers. Plaintiffs moved to compel the production ofa designee to

testifY for the District on the area of inquiry.

At the same time, a substantially similar issue was briefed and adjudicated

in Alliance v. Global Justice. et al. v. District of Columbia. et al., Civil Action No.

01-0811, Civil Action No. 01-0811 (PLF/JMF).

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS -JMF Document 301 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 300 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
The parties have agreed to resolve this dispute and consent to the relief set forth in this Order. The above-referenced deposition topic will proceed in accordance with the authorizations and limitations set forth in Magistrate Judge Facciola's June 15,2006 Memorandwn Opinion in Alliance for Global Justice, et al. v. District ofColwnbia, et aI., Civil Action 01-0811 (PLFfJMF). Broadly stated, the District is to produce one or more designees to testifY about the executive branch of the District government's knowledge and views of the March 24, 2004 Report, the December 1, 2004 Report and the need for, and basis for, the District of Columbia's enactment ofthe First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of2004. The District is protected from having to produce a designee to testifY about knowledge and views ofthe District of Colwnbia Council.

Serve upon: All Counsel ofRecord

United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 316 Filed 07/10/07 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

)

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

) CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civ. Action No. 02-2010 (EGS) Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)

ORDER

In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion issued this same

day, it is by the Court hereby

ORDERED that the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Department’s

Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the

Alternative, Motion for More Definitive Statement [Dkt. No. 188]

in Civil Action No. 02-2010 (Chang case) is DENIED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Defendants’ Renewed Motion

to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No.

204] in Civil Action No. 02-2010 (Chang case) is GRANTED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART; and it is

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 316 Filed 07/10/07 Page 2 of 2

FURTHER ORDERED plaintiffs’ Fourth Claim for Relief (Failure to Provide Miranda Warning) and Fifth Claim for Relief (Right to Counsel) as to the Federal Defendants in Civil Action No. 02-2010 (Chang case) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 238] in Civil Action No. 02-2283 (Barham case) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge July 10, 2007

2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

)

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civ. Action No. 02-2010 (EGS) Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 27, 2002, demonstrations occurred around the

District of Columbia in connection with World Bank and

International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) meetings. These related

cases arise from a mass arrest in General John Pershing Park

(“Pershing Park” or “Park”) on that day. Plaintiffs in Civil

Action No. 02-2010 (“Chang plaintiffs”) and Civil Action No. 02-

2283 (“Barham plaintiffs”) were among approximately 400 people

arrested in the Park. Plaintiffs allege various constitutional,

statutory, and common law violations stemming from the arrests.

Pending before the Court in the Barham (02-2283) and Chang (02-

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 2 of 36
2010) cases are motions by the federal defendants’1 to dismiss or, in the alternative for summary judgment. Also pending before the Court in the Chang case is defendant Fairfax County Sheriff’s Department’s (“FCSD”) motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, motion for more definitive statement. Upon review of the motions, responses and replies thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record, the Court DENIES the federal defendants’ motion in the Barham case, GRANTS
IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the federal defendants’ motion in the
Chang case, and DENIES Fairfax County’s motion in the Chang case.
I. BACKGROUND
This Court’s September 24, 2004 Memorandum Opinion in Barham
v. Ramsey, 338 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004), and the D.C. Circuit’s review of that decision, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C. Cir. 2006), detail the events at Pershing Park on the morning of September 27, 2002, the aftermath of such events, and the involvement of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”).
1 The federal defendants named in Chang case (02-2010) are the United States, the National Park Service, Richard Murphy (who acted as Commander of the Special Forces Branch of the U.S. Park Police during the relevant period), and John and Jane Does 1-10 in their individual and official capacities. The federal defendants named in the Barham case (02-2283) are the United States, Gale Norton, Director of the National Park Service, in her official capacity, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in his official capacity, Richard Murphy, in his official and individual capacity, and unidentified officers, supervisors, and law enforcement agencies, in their official and individual capacities.
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 3 of 36
This Memorandum Opinion focuses on the role of the federal defendants and Fairfax County Sheriff’s Department officers.
A. United States Park Police The National Park Service annually hosts more than 3,000 demonstrations and other special events. As part of their routine procedures, they coordinate with other federal and local law enforcement agencies. Barham Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 4; Chang Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 4. Prior to the September 27 demonstrations, the Park Police and other law enforcement agencies participated in meetings to address how to respond to possible scenarios that could arise during predicted demonstrations. Barham Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 8; Chang Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 5. On September 27, 2002, Major Richard Murphy was the senior Park Police officer at Pershing Park. Before his arrival at the Park, Murphy was informed that demonstrators left Freedom Plaza and were heading west toward Pershing Park. Barham Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 15; Chang Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 10. When Murphy arrived at the Park around 9:20 a.m., the entire Park was not closed off. Murphy Dep. 228:10-14. Murphy was asked by an MPD official to help “hold” persons in the
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 4 of 36
Park. Murphy Dep. 177:14-16; 178:17-179:1; 206:13-19.2 In response, Murphy radioed the following communication: “[C]ar 27, have 901 deploy his personnel on the south side of Pershing Park. We’re going to enclose the demonstrators up here in Pershing Park with Metropolitan Police.” Murphy Dep. 181:6-10. The Park Police (with the assistance of FCSD officers contracted to work with them) proceeded to assist MPD officers in creating a police line on the north and south sides of Pershing Park. At 9:35 a.m., Murphy radioed the following communication to his fellow Park Police officers: “[C]ar 27 for the officers who have just been deployed in Pershing Park, we’ve established a police line. We’re going to keep the crowd inside Pershing Park. We’re not going to allow them to come through the police line. We’re working with Metropolitan on this.” Id. 193:6-12. At some point during this period, Murphy saw people coming and going from the south side of the Park and he called additional units to deploy there. Id. 229:13-17. At least as to the west end of the Park, Murphy was also aware that people arrived separately and in different groups. Barham Pls.’ Statement of Genuine Issues ¶ 16; Barham Fed. Defs.’ Resp. to Pls.’ Statement of Genuine Issues ¶ 16.
2 Both parties rely extensively on the deposition testimony of Major Murphy to support their accounts of the facts though the parties dispute how such testimony should be characterized.
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 5 of 36
Between 9:42 a.m. and 10:20 a.m., Murphy met with senior MPD officials on the scene including Assistant Chief Peter Newsham (“AC Newsham”) and Assistant Chief Brian Jordan and he overheard conversations by then Commander Cathy Lanier. Id. 213:7-18. Major Murphy had two separate encounters with AC Newsham between 9:42 and 10:20 a.m. During the first encounter, Newsham asked Murphy if the group in the Park had a permit to demonstrate there and Murphy told him that they did not. Id. 215:5-10. Newsham then asked whether the individuals in the Park could be arrested for demonstrating without a permit. Murphy responded that they technically could be arrested for demonstrating without a permit but the Park Police would not arrest individuals for that offense because it was Park Police policy to inform demonstrators of the violation and order them to disperse prior to any arrests. Id. 218:22-219:13. Murphy also commented to Newsham at that time that it appeared that individuals were being prevented from departing from the area at the time of their conversation. Id. 219:13-15. Newsham then paused and recounted that if the group attempted to go through police lines, they would be arrested for crossing police lines and if they made it to the street, they would be arrested for parading without a permit. Id. 219:17-21. Murphy responded that this was Newsham’s call. Id. 220:2-3. That was the end of the first encounter between Newsham and Murphy.
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 6 of 36
A little while later, Murphy was again approached by Newsham who informed Murphy that the individuals in the Park were going to be arrested for failure to obey a police order, specifically a traffic regulation, before they entered the Park. Id. 227:5-17. It is undisputed that all persons in the Park were “ultimately surrounded, enclosed, were not free to leave and were under arrest.” Barham Pls.’ Statement of Genuine Issues ¶ 8; see also Barham Fed. Defs.’ Resp. To Pls.’ Statement of Genuine Issues ¶ 8 (noting no dispute). The parties do dispute, however, the role of the Park Police in the arrest and their intent for being at Pershing Park.
B. Fairfax County Sheriff’s Department On September 23, 2002, the FCSD entered into an interagency agreement with the United States Park Police, which was effective from September 25-30, 2002. FCSD’s Statement of Material Facts ¶ 1. The agreement calls for the FCSD to provide “law enforcement assistance on Federal parkland” during the IMF/World Bank demonstrations. Id. ¶ 2. The agreement provides that “[r]esponsibility for the overall law enforcement operations during this event on Federal parkland will remain with the Chief of the Force3 or her designee.” Interagency Agreement ¶ 2. The
3 “The Force” is defined in the interagency agreement as the United States Park Police. See Interagency Agreement between Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office, Fairfax, Virginia and the United States Park Police (“Interagency Agreement”) at 1, Ex. 1 to FCSD’s Statement of Material Facts.
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 7 of 36
agreement further provides that the “Officer-in-charge of the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office personnel will have an integral part of any decision making process that could have an effect of its officers, including decisions made with other agencies that may be brought in and made part of the law enforcement detail.” Id. ¶ 2. The agreement also states that the Park Police were requesting the assistance of 26 FCSD officers. Id. ¶ 4.
FCSD Commander Basilio Cachuela was the highest ranking officer on the scene at Pershing Park on September 27. FCSD’s Statement of Material Facts ¶ 8. Cachuela claims that he “reported to” U.S. Park Police Lieutenant Tom Neider. Id. ¶ 9. Lieutenant Neider told Commander Cachuela to deploy FCSD officers to Pershing Park and have those officers “form a perimeter” along the edge of the Park. FCSD’s Statement of Material Facts at ¶ 10; Chang Pls.’ Resp. to FCSD’s Statement of Material Facts ¶ 10; Cachuela Dep. 50:11-19. After FCSD officers formed a perimeter on the north side of the Park, a D.C. police lieutenant said “[n]o one in, no one out.” Cachuela Dep. 53:14-15. Cachuela then “looked at the Lieutenant of the Park Police . . . and [the Park Police Lieutenant] just kind of nodded his head like, okay, we heard that, and then [Cachuela] told [his] guys, you know, we got the word, no one in, no one out.” Id. 53:14-19. FCSD officers remained along the perimeter as MPD officers “funnel[ed] the people in the crowd into Metro buses.” Id.
7

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 8 of 36
53:14-54:22. Once the crowd got to a size where FCSD officers were not needed anymore, they left. Id. 54:10-11.
C. Federal Bureau of Investigation The FBI is the lead federal agency responsible for addressing threats or acts of terrorism and crisis management in connection with weapons of mass destruction. Barham Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 5-6. Prior to the September 27, 2002 demonstrations, the FBI participated in planning meetings where responses to possible scenarios that could arise during demonstrations were discussed. Id. ¶ 8. Based on prior instances of rioting and violence at such events and expected large crowds, the FBI also opened a Counter-Terrorism/Special Events case regarding the IMF/World Bank meetings. Rice Decl. ¶ 4. During the September 27, 2002 demonstrations, FBI personnel were responsible for various tasks. Barham Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 12. FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (“JTTF”) personnel engaged in intelligence gathering through crowd surveillance. Rice Decl. ¶ 7; Gardner Dep. 38:4-39:19. The FBI also provided “liaison and assistance, as requested, to local law enforcement and fire-rescue personnel.” Rice Decl. ¶ 4; Barham Fed. Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶ 7. Specifically, the FBI provided portable fingerprint processing equipment and thirteen FBI employees from the Criminal Justice Information
8

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 9 of 36
System (“CJIS”) Division to operate that equipment, in order to assist with post-arrest identification of those individuals arrested in Pershing Park. Strait Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7; Rice Decl. ¶ 9.
On September 27, 2002, the CJIS “fly-away team” operated portable fingerprint processing stations at the MPD Academy gymnasium where arrestees were detained after their arrest in Pershing Park. Strait Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10. CJIS personnel digitally scanned all fingerprint cards for fingerprints taken by the MPD and entered identification data from the cards into the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (“IAFIS”) -- an FBI database that matches scanned fingerprints against existing fingerprints in the system. Strait Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8. One purpose of the IAFIS system is to provide a rapid means of confirming the identity of each arrested individual. Id. ¶ 9.
The FBI criminal history databases contain information regarding the arrest of at least some of the named plaintiffs who were arrested on September 27, 2002. Id. ¶¶ 16-18. Such information is maintained in the FBI’s Fingerprint Identification Records System (“FIRS”) and the National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) Interstate Identification Index (“III”). Id. ¶ 14.
Finally, some CJIS personnel took pictures in the MPD gymnasium with their own cameras. Id. ¶ 12. Some of the arrestees appear in some of these photographs. Id. The FBI claims, however, that these photographs are not of individual
9

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 10 of 36
arrestees, were not taken at the direction of FBI personnel or with FBI equipment. Id.
D. Pending Motions The federal defendants have filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the Barham case, Civil Action No. 02-2283, the federal defendants argue in their motion that plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims for injunctive relief against the federal defendants, that the Park Police’s actions did not constitute an arrest or seizure, or, alternatively, that the Park Police legitimately responded to a request for assistance from another law enforcement agency. As to the FBI, the federal defendants in the Barham case argue that none of the actions taken by the FBI in processing fingerprints violated any rights of any plaintiffs. Finally, the federal defendants in the Barham case also argue that claims brought against Richard Murphy in his individual capacity should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. In the Chang case, Civil Action No. 02-2010, the federal defendants also argue lack of standing, that the Park Police did not arrest or seize anyone or, alternatively, responded to a legitimate request from law enforcement, and that Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity. In addition, the federal
10

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 11 of 36
defendants in the Chang case argue that any claims for money damages against federal organizations and individual defendants in their official capacities are barred on sovereign immunity grounds. The federal defendants in the Chang case further argue that plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 lack merit and plaintiffs’ Due Process, Miranda, and right to counsel claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The FCSD filed its own motion to dismiss, for summary judgment, or for a more definitive statement in the Chang case. In addition to incorporating the arguments of the federal defendants by reference, the FCSD argues that it should be dismissed from this case based on the application of the borrowed servant doctrine. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Rule 12(b)(1) Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Bernard v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 362 F. Supp. 2d 272, 277 (D.D.C. 2005). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Rann v. Chao, 154 F. Supp. 2d 61, 64 (D.D.C. 2001), aff’d, 346 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must accept the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construe
11

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 12 of 36
all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Thompson v. Capitol Police Bd., 120 F. Supp. 2d 78, 81 (D.D.C. 2000). “The court is not required, however, to accept inferences unsupported by the facts alleged or legal conclusions that are cast as factual allegations.” Rann, 154 F. Supp. 2d at 64 (citations omitted). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court may “‘consider such materials outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate to resolve the question whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case.’” Sweeney v. Am. Registry of Pathology, 287 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2003) (citations omitted).
B. Rule 12(b)(6) Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A complaint must present “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” and “above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965, 1974 (2007). The Court will accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, and give the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be drawn from the facts alleged. See id. at 1965; Atchinson v. Dist. of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 422 (D.C. Cir. 1996). C. Rule 56 Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment should be granted only if the moving party has
12

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 13 of 36
shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); Waterhouse v. Dist. of Columbia, 298 F.3d 989, 991 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the Court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). III. ANALYSIS
A. Sovereign Immunity in the Chang Case (02-2010) The federal defendants in the Chang case seek dismissal and/or summary judgment on sovereign immunity grounds as to plaintiffs’ claims for money damages based on any alleged constitutional violations by federal agencies or individual federal defendants acting in their official capacities. To the extent that plaintiffs seek any damages against the federal law enforcement agencies or individual federal defendants acting in their official capacities for constitutional violations, the Court grants the federal defendants’ motion. Sovereign immunity bars all suits against the United States unless there is an explicit statutory waiver to such immunity. Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996). The scope of any such explicit waiver is strictly construed in favor of the government. Id. Moreover, the sovereign immunity bar extends beyond the
13

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 14 of 36
government itself to federal employees named as defendants in their official capacities. See Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 103 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (finding that sovereign immunity “bar[s] suits for money damages against officials in their official capacity absent a specific waiver by the government”).
Neither the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., nor the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2679(b)(1)-(2), provide for waiver of the federal government’s immunity from suit for damages for any constitutional torts committed by federal employees acting in their official capacities. See Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Thomas, 521 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (“The Administrative Procedure Act, by itself, is not a waiver of sovereign immunity in suits seeking money damages against the United States.”); Kline v. Republic of El Salvador, 603 F. Supp. 1313, 1317 (D.D.C. 1985) (“[T]he Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity with respect to constitutional torts.” (citing Laswell v. Brown, 683 F.2d 261, 267-68 (8th Cir.1982); Birnbaum v. United States, 588 F.2d 319, 327-28 (2d Cir.1978)). Plaintiffs provide no other statutory basis for a waiver of sovereign immunity that would allow claims for money damages based on alleged constitutional torts. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiffs attempt to seek any money damages for alleged constitutional violations committed by federal government
14

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 15 of 36
agencies or officials acting in their official capacities, such relief is barred.4
B. Standing for Injunctive Relief Claims in the Barham (02-2283) and Chang (02-2010) Cases
The federal defendants in both the Chang and Barham cases argue that plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims for injunctive relief against the federal defendants. The Court disagrees.
There are three requirements to establish the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing: (1) an alleged injury in fact -- a concrete, actual or imminent harm; (2) causation -- “a fairly traceable connection between the plaintiff’s injury and the complained-of conduct of the defendant”; and (3) redressibility -- “a likelihood that the requested relief will redress the alleged injury.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing. Id. at 104. When the plaintiff himself is the object of the alleged injurious government action, however, “there is ordinarily little question that the action . . . has caused him injury, and that a
4 In their opposition brief, plaintiffs argue that sovereign immunity does not bar plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief or nonconstititutional torts against the federal defendants. Plaintiffs do not address, however, defendants’ argument that money damages are not available for alleged constitutional torts committed by federal law enforcement agencies and individuals acting in their official capacities. Thus, the Court treats plaintiffs’ silence as a concession as to this argument.
15

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 16 of 36
judgment preventing . . . the action will redress it.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
In this case, the federal defendants argue that plaintiffs fail to prove the causation element required for standing. The federal defendants claim that the decision to prevent plaintiffs from further engaging in First Amendment activities was made by the District of Columbia MPD alone and any arrests were also carried out by the MPD alone. As discussed in more detail below, however, the Park Police officers in Pershing Park on the morning of September 27, 2002 were not merely innocent bystanders. They formed portions of two sides of a box of officers around Pershing Park that prevented hundreds of people from leaving. The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the federal defendants “caused” plaintiffs to be arrested when Park Police officers (and Fairfax County police officers contracted to work with them) encircled the Park thereby restraining plaintiffs’ freedom to leave. Accordingly, to the extent the federal defendants challenge plaintiffs’ standing, their motions are denied.
C. Arrests in Barham (02-2283) and Chang (02-2010) Cases MPD, Park Police, and FCSD officers jointly participated in the arrest of plaintiffs. A person is arrested or “seized” when a police officer “restrains his freedom to walk away.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 (1968); see also Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 629 (2003) (“A seizure of the person within the meaning of
16

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 17 of 36
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments occurs when taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553 (1980) (finding that a person is “seized” when, “by means of physical force or show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained”). Ultimately, “[w]hether there has been an arrest turns on whether there has been an imposition of custody, and this is a determination made after examining both the objective circumstances and the subjective feeling those circumstances are likely to evoke.” United States v. White, 648 F.2d 29, 33-34 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled” may be enough to constitute an arrest, as a reasonable person may believe he is not free to leave under such circumstances. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554.
Under the circumstances in this case, a reasonable person encircled by law enforcement officers on all sides would not have felt free to leave. This is evident from the statements of
17

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 18 of 36
individuals who were enclosed in Pershing Park by the Park Police, MPD, and FCSD. For example, plaintiff Sally Norton recounts that police, some of whom were in full riot gear, began tightening the circle around individuals within the Park and were yelling at people within the perimeter to “move in.” Interrogatory Responses of Sally Norton at 7-8, Ex. 24 to Pls.’ Opp’n to Fed. Defs.’ Mot. (Barham case). Police also yelled at individuals: “You cannot leave, move, move” while people were moving backward into the center of the Park. Id. Moreover, the federal defendants do not dispute that an arrest occurred. Instead, they just argue that Park Police did not conduct the arrest.
The Park Police’s arguments that they did not effect an arrest because they had no intent to arrest anyone and they did not prevent individuals from leaving the Park entirely are unavailing. An arrest is an “intentional acquisition of physical control” and the “detention or taking itself must be willful.” Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596 (1989). Whether or not the Park Police had an intent to arrest anyone is a factintensive question that is, at a minimum, disputed. The federal defendants point to the D.C. Circuit’s earlier characterization of the evidence in the Barham case to argue lack of intent. Specifically, they argue that Major Murphy told MPD AC Newsham that the Park Police “would not initiate arrests” and that the
18

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 19 of 36
Park Police were only enlisted to “provide backup.” Barham, 434 F.3d 569. As the Circuit Court was not faced with the question of whether or not the Park Police participated in the arrest, reliance on these characterizations are unpersuasive.
Just looking at the testimony of Major Murphy alone raises disputed questions of fact as to the intent of the Park Police in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002. Murphy testified that the Park Police were “[n]ot maintaining the arrest of . . . individuals” and were “basically securing a perimeter while arrests were being made by other individuals.” Murphy Dep. 243:1-8. Yet, he also testified that he gave orders through various radio transmissions to other Park Police officers to help encircle the individuals within the Park. See Murphy Dep. 181:610 (“We’re going to enclose the demonstrators up here in Pershing Park with Metropolitan Police.”); Id. 193:9-12 (“We’re going to keep the crowd inside Pershing Park. We’re not going to allow them to come through the police line. We’re working with Metropolitan on this.”); Id. 321:12-18 (admitting that Park Police, MPD and other law enforcement “contained” individuals within Pershing Park). These radio transmissions raise some dispute as to the nature of the Park Police’s actions and their intent in being at Pershing Park.
The fact that the Park Police may have initially had an independent ground for stationing officers at or near Pershing
19

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 20 of 36
Park other than the mass arrest -- namely, to ensure the security of the White House complex -- does not free the Park Police from liability for their participation in the arrest. Although the federal defendants argue that the Park Police acted only to prevent demonstrators from moving westward into the White House complex, the facts in evidence create some dispute as to this contention. Park Police and FCSD officers lined portions of both the north and south side of the Park even though the White House was to the west. Moreover, Major Murphy’s radio transmissions directed his officers to encircle individuals within the Park alongside the MPD and the radio transmissions do not direct officers only to prevent individuals from moving in the direction of the White House. Given the evidence presented thus far in the case, the Court cannot say that there is no dispute as to the intent of Murphy and his fellow Park Police officers in participating in the encirclement of individuals within Pershing Park.
The mere fact that the Park Police responded to a request from a high-level MPD official to help enclose the people in Pershing Park rather than independently deciding to take such action does not shield the Park Police from liability for claims of illegal arrest without probable cause. In some circumstances, all of which are distinguishable from this case, officers can rely on another officer’s (or magistrate judge’s) probable cause
20

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 21 of 36
determination as a basis for an arrest even if the arresting officer was not present when probable cause was established. See Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 568 (1971) (finding that officers who assist another officer in executing a warrant “are entitled to assume that the officers requesting aid offered the magistrate the information requisite to support an independent judicial assessment of probable cause”); United States v. Colon, 250 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir. 2001) (finding that an arresting officer in a large police department “might not be aware of all the underlying facts that provided probable cause or reasonable suspicion, but may nonetheless act reasonably in relying on information received by other law enforcement officials”). Probable cause for arrest does not necessarily have to develop in front of the officer who makes the arrest. For example, in Wahab v. City of New York, 386 F. Supp. 2d 277, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), the court found that police had probable cause to arrest an individual involved in an altercation in a mall based on a report from a mall security guard that a crime had been committed and a brief description of the altercation. The court held that probable cause is established “when the arresting officer has knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested.” Id. at 286 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
21

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 22 of 36
In this case, the federal defendants argue that the Park Police could rely on the MPD’s claim of probable cause because AC Newsham told Murphy that individuals were being arrested for disobeying a police order prior to their arrival at Pershing Park. A person of reasonable caution faced with what Major Murphy witnessed himself at Pershing Park would not believe there was probable cause to arrest every single person in the Park. The reasonableness of an officer’s actions is determined based on, among other things, the “information that the officer possesses or to which he has reasonable access.” Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 273 (3d Cir. 2000). Although an officer may rely on information obtained from fellow officers, “this in no way negates a police officer’s duty to reasonably inquire or investigate these reported facts.” Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1293 n.16 (9th Cir. 1999).
When Murphy arrived at Pershing Park around 9:20 a.m. on the morning of September 27, 2002, he was immediately asked for assistance in holding people in the Park. He deployed Park Police personnel, along with FCSD officers contracted to work with the Park Police, to the north and south sides of the Park without inquiring about the basis for such enclosure. Only after the Park Police, FCSD and MPD began forming a police line to keep the crowd in the Park did Assistant Chief Newsham ask Murphy if
22

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 23 of 36
the persons inside the Park could be arrested for demonstrating without a permit. Upon being told that the Park Police do not arrest people for demonstrating without a permit without first giving an order to disperse, Newsham then informed Murphy that anyone who got through the police line could be arrested for parading without a permit. Only after exploring these two possible bases for arrest did Newsham tell Murphy that individuals within the Park would be arrested for failing to obey police orders purportedly given to them before they entered the Park.
Although failure to obey a police order is a valid basis for arrest, see D.C. Code § 50-2302.02(19), Murphy admits that he had no knowledge of what order each individual failed to obey, when and where such order was given, or whether each and every person subject to arrest had, in fact, violated a specific order. Murphy Dep. 232:3-22. Murphy also admits that he undertook no independent assessment to determine whether probable cause existed to arrest each individual that happened to be in the Park at the time the law enforcement officers encircled them. Id. 233:1-6. Moreover, when Murphy arrived at the Park, individuals were freely coming and going from the Park. Under these circumstances, Murphy cannot point to undisputed facts that suggest that the Park Police had a basis for believing that Pershing Park contained only individuals for whom there was
23

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 24 of 36
probable cause to make an arrest. See Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 372-73 (2003) (recounting holding in Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979), that a “person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause” as to that person and that “seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person”); cf. Barham, 434 F.3d at 577 (finding a genuine issue of fact preventing summary judgment based on whether Chief Ramsey “knew there was no basis for believing Pershing Park contained only individuals for whom there was probable cause to make an arrest”). Accordingly, the federal defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on an argument that the Park Police were relying on a probable cause determination already made by Newsham.
D. Major Murphy’s Immunity Claim for Pershing Park Arrests in Barham (02-2283) and Chang (02-2010) Cases
Murphy, who has been sued in his individual capacity, claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Int’l Action Ctr. v. United States, 365 F.3d 20, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.
24

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 25 of 36
800, 818 (1982)). In Barham, when rejecting qualified immunity for Newsham, the D.C. Circuit reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s twopart inquiry in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), for determining whether a government official is protected by qualified immunity. See Barham, 434 F.3d at 572. First, the Court must address a “threshold question: Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right?” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. Second, and only if the first question is answered in the affirmative, the Court asks “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. In evaluating the second prong of the inquiry, the “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). The relevant inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202.
As to Newsham, the D.C. Circuit held that the threshold question of whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right must be answered in the affirmative. Barham, 434 F.3d at 572-73. The Circuit also held that the “mass arrest at Pershing Park violated the clearly established rights
25

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 26 of 36
of plaintiffs by detaining them without probable cause.” Barham, 434 F.3d at 573. The Circuit rejected Newsham’s argument that there was probable cause for the arrests based on the failure of plaintiffs to obey a police order. Id. at 574. The Circuit held that Newsham had presented “no facts capable of supporting the proposition that Newsham had reasonable, particularized grounds to believe every one of the 386 people arrested was observed committing a crime.” Id. The Circuit also points to the fluidity of movement in and around the park preceding the arrests as a further basis for discrediting any attempt to argue probable cause. Id.
With the Circuit having already decided that qualified immunity was not warranted for Newsham’s conduct, this Court must determine whether Murphy’s role in the arrests on September 27, 2002 differs in any significant way that suggests that he should receive qualified immunity when Newsham did not. The Court finds no relevant distinction in Murphy’s conduct that calls for such immunity. When Murphy arrived at the Park, he saw people coming and going from the Park. Murphy undertook no independent assessment to determine whether probable cause was warranted prior to ordering his officers to help encircle the approximately 400 individuals in the Park. Murphy knew that no order to disperse had been given. Murphy also saw no violent activity by individuals within the Park. Murphy was told by Newsham that
26

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 27 of 36
individuals in the Park were being arrested for failure to obey a police order but he did not know which order, who disobeyed or when or where this disobedience occurred. Based on Murphy’s own observations preceding and during the mass arrest of the individuals in the Park, it was objectively unreasonable for him to participate in the mass arrest solely relying on Newsham’s representations that all of the individuals in the Park were being arrested for failure to obey a police order. It was not reasonable for Murphy to believe that there was particularized probable cause to arrest every individual in the Park or that he did not have a duty to reasonably inquire or investigate what was told to him by Newsham. See Mendocino Envt’l Ctr., 192 F.3d at 1293 n.16 (noting that the 9th Circuit has denied qualified immunity “to police officers who indisputably relied on information obtained from other law enforcement officials, when [the court] concluded that they violated their duty to conduct further investigation”). Murphy cannot participate in a mass arrest not supported by probable cause and then shift all responsibility to Newsham, whom he did not question despite his own observations. Accordingly, the Court denies qualified immunity to Murphy.
E. Section 1983 Claim Against Murphy in Barham Case (02-2283)
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages from Murphy pursuant to Bivens or, in the alternative, pursuant to 42
27

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 28 of 36
U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ alternative claim against Murphy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed because there is no evidence that Murphy was acting under color of state law at the time of the events alleged in plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. The Court disagrees.
To sustain a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant was acting “under color of” state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Williams v. United States, 396 F.3d 412, 414-415 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Circuit courts that have looked at whether defendants have acted under color of state law have “focused on whether these defendants are state officials or have conspired with state officials in committing the alleged illegal acts.” Williams, 396 F.3d at 414. A joint conspiracy between federal and state officials can form the basis of a Section 1983 action when the state or its officials play a significant role in the violation at issue. See Kletschka v. Driver, 411 F.2d 436, 44849 (2d Cir. 1969).
In this case, there is evidence that state and federal officials acted in concert to seize the individuals within Pershing Park without probable cause. State officials certainly played a significant role in the alleged violation of constitutional rights as has already been determined by the D.C. Circuit in Barham, 434 F.3d 565. Murphy himself asserts that his actions in ordering officers to form part of the line encircling
28

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 29 of 36
individuals within the Park were at the encouragement and request of D.C. officials. As such, the Court denies summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim against Murphy.
F. Equitable Relief Against the FBI in the Barham Case (02-2283)
In their Third Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the FBI used the mass arrests in Pershing Park as a mass intelligence gathering operation. Third Am. Compl. at ¶ 2. Plaintiffs further allege that federal agents worked in concert with the MPD to collect photographs, fingerprints, and other information about political activists. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 152. As a result, plaintiffs seek equitable relief that would expunge all arrest records and derivative records, including intelligence records, that were derived from the September 27, 2002 arrests. Plaintiffs seek to prevent reputational and other harms as a result of these records. Plaintiffs also note that there has been little deposition discovery on this issue because of the general stay on discovery that was in place.
The FBI counters that plaintiffs’ claim against the FBI fails because the FBI only performed the task of processing fingerprints in the ordinary course of business and did not engage in any violations of plaintiffs’ rights. At this stage, without full discovery on this issue, the Court finds that defendants’ motion is premature. As the FBI has control of the records plaintiffs wish to have expunged, the FBI is a proper
29

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 30 of 36
party in this case, at least for the time being. Accordingly, the Court denies the federal defendants’ motion to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the FBI from the case. This denial is without prejudice to reconsideration at the close of discovery.
G. Remaining Claims Against Federal Defendants in the Chang Case (02-2010)
The federal defendants in the Chang case also move for dismissal of or judgment on plaintiffs’ claims of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, and claims involving violations of Due Process, the right to counsel, and Miranda rights. The Court finds that it is premature to address the conspiracy and Due Process claims until after the close of discovery. The right to counsel and Miranda claims, however, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and are therefore dismissed.5
Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated their rights by failing to inform plaintiffs of their Miranda rights prior to their arrest. No cause of action exists, however, for the failure to provide Miranda warnings prior to an arrest. Instead, Miranda merely provides for the exclusion from trial of statements made by a criminal defendant during a custodial interrogation if those statements were obtained in the absence of
5 The Chang plaintiffs admit in their opposition brief that the federal defendants “have a strong objection to these counts and, indeed, [p]laintiffs are considering a voluntary waiver of these claims as to them.” Chang Pls.’ Opp’n to Fed. Defs.’ Renewed Mot. to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, for Summ. J. at 41.
30

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 31 of 36
procedural safeguards designed to protect the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). The right to receive Miranda warnings is not a constitutional right in and of itself. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 772 (2003) (finding that “Chavez’s failure to read Miranda warnings to Martinez did not violate Martinez’s constitutional rights and cannot be grounds for a § 1983 action”).
Plaintiffs’ claimed violation of the right to counsel also fails. The right to counsel “attaches only at or after the time adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated against a person.” Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688 (1972). In this case, there is no dispute that no adverse judicial proceedings were ever brought against any of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court grants the federal defendants’ motion in the Chang case to the extent it seeks dismissal of the right to counsel and Miranda claims.
H. FCSD’s Motion in the Chang Case (02-2010) In its motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, motion for a more definitive statement, the FCSD incorporates by reference the motions filed by the federal defendants in the Chang case. The Court has already ruled on these motions as indicated above and accordingly addresses only FCSD’s argument under the borrowed servant doctrine in this
31

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 32 of 36
section. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies FCSD’s motion as to the borrowed servant doctrine.6
1. Borrowed servant doctrine
Under the law of agency, “a person who is generally the servant of one master[] can become the ‘borrowed’ servant of another.” Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 220 (D.C. Cir. 1977). If the “borrowed servant commits a tort while carrying out the bidding of the borrower, vicarious liability for that tort attaches to the borrower and not the general master.” Id. However, “[a] person may be the servant of two masters, not joint employers, at one time as to one act, if the service to one does not involve the abandonment of service to the other.” Restatement (Second) of Agency § 226.7 Whether one party is the “sole master to whom liability can attach . . . is usually a question of fact, generally to be decided by the jury.” Dellums,
566 F.2d at 220; see also Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.03
6 Because the Court has considered the extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties in support of their briefs, the Court treats this motion as one for summary judgment. Plaintiffs were on notice that FCSD’s motion was at least potentially one for summary judgment and they submitted their own evidence in support of their opposition. See Colbert v. Potter, 471 F.3d 158, 168 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
7 Although the Restatement (Second) of Agency has been superceded by the Restatement (Third) of Agency, the latter still recognizes the borrowed servant doctrine and the possibility that both the general employer and the borrowed (or special) employer can be liable for the same act. See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.03 cmt. d.
32

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 33 of 36
cmt. d(2) (“It is a question of fact whether a general or a special employer, or both, have the right to control an employee’s conduct.”).
In this case, the facts are in dispute as to whether the Park Police, FCSD, or both, were in control of FCSD officers at Pershing Park on September 27, 2002. Although the Interagency Agreement entered into between the Park Police and FCSD provides that “[r]esponsibility for overall law enforcement events will remain with the Chief” of the Park Police, Interagency Agreement at 1, it also provides that “[t]he Officer-in-charge of the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office personnel will have an integral part of any decision making process that could have an effect on its officers . . . .” Interagency Agreement ¶ 2 (emphasis added). Under the terms of the Interagency Agreement, FCSD did not give up all direction and control over its officers to the Park Police.
The testimony of the officers on the scene at Pershing Park on the morning of September 27, 2002 also raises a factual dispute as to whether the Park Police were in sole or shared control of the FCSD officers. Major Murphy testified in his deposition that the “Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office was under the control and direction of the Park Police during the demonstrations,” Murphy Dep. 514:2-5, and that Murphy could “essentially order the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office to deploy
33

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 34 of 36
in particular ways,” id. 514:8-11. Murphy also testified, however, that Park Police Lieutenant Nieder, not Murphy, was the one coordinating with the FCSD officers on September 27, id. 521:12-19, that the FCSD officers had their own command structure, id. 523:21-524:4, and that FCSD officers remained together in a cohesive unit, id. 524:8-12. Moreover, Basillo Cachuela -- ranking commander of the FCSD on September 27 -testified that he told his guys “no one in, no one out” after hearing such a command from a D.C. police lieutenant and getting just a nod from the Park Police lieutenant, Cachuela Dep. 53:1420, suggesting that Cachuela was still in command of and gave orders to his own officers, even if that command and control was shared with the Park Police.
The Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact as to who was in control of the FCSD officers and whether such control was shared or joint. Accordingly, the Court denies summary judgment to FCSD based on the borrowed servant doctrine.8
8 Based on FCSD’s claim that it was just a borrowed servant of the Park Police and that its officers were deputized by the U.S. Marshal’s Service, FCSD claims that it is entitled to dismissal of plaintiffs’ case based on sovereign immunity and the protections of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Because the facts underlying the applicability of the borrowed servant doctrine are in dispute, the Court declines to extend sovereign immunity or FTCA protection to the FCSD at this time.
34

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 35 of 36
2. Proximate cause and standing FCSD argues that plaintiffs cannot establish a proximate cause between the actions of inactions of FCSD officers and plaintiffs’ injuries and that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring any claims for injunctive relief against FCSD. To the same extent that the Park Police were involved in plaintiffs’ arrest and/or seizure, FCSD was also involved. Accordingly, the Court rejects FCSD’s arguments that plaintiffs do not have standing and/or cannot show a proximate cause between their alleged injuries and FCSD’s conduct.
3. More definitive statement Pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, FCSD argues that plaintiffs should be required to provide a more definitive statement as to which allegations in the Third Amended Complaint apply to which defendants. Rule 12(e) provides that motions for a more definitive statement are appropriate only where a pleading is “so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). In general, motions for a more definitive statement are “looked upon with disfavor and are rarely granted in light of the notice-pleading framework of the federal rules.” Towers Tenant Ass’n v. Towers Ltd. P’ship, 563 F. Supp. 566, 569 (D.D.C. 1983). “[M]ere lack of detail” is not
35

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 317 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 36 of 36

a sufficient basis for granting a motion for a more definitive statement. Id. at 569.
The complaint in this case is more than sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All defendants are on notice as to the factual allegations underlying plaintiffs’ claims for relief. Accordingly, the Court denies FCSD’s motion to the extent it seeks a more definitive statement from plaintiffs. IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the federal defendants’ motion in the Barham case (Civ. Action No. 02-2283), GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the federal defendants’ motion in the Chang case (Civ. Action No. 02-2010), and DENIES Fairfax County’s motion in the Chang case (Civ. Action No. 02-2010). An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge July 10, 2007

36

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 351 Filed 10/30/07 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES RAMSEY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

)

Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the

Production of Running Resumes and Recorded Police Channel

Communications by the District of Columbia. Upon consideration

of plaintiffs’ motion, the response and reply thereto, the

applicable law and the entire record, it is hereby ORDERED that:

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the District of Columbia shall produce

the Joint Operations Command Center (J.O.C.C.) running resume for

September 27, 2002, before the close of discovery on November 16,

2007; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that if the District of Columbia is unable

to produce the J.O.C.C. running resume by the close of discovery

on November 16, 2007, defendants shall submit a sworn declaration

by counsel of record describing in detail the efforts undertaken

to locate the document. Defendants’ declaration shall describe

the entirety of the search, including the places searched, the

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 351 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 2

dates the search took place, and the persons involved in conducting the search. Defendants shall specifically account for any copies of the J.O.C.C. running resume for September 27, 2002 that may have been provided to the Metropolitan Police Department Office of General Counsel and to the offices of MPD Command Staff; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall produce an unredacted copy of the Special Services Command running resume for September 27, 2002 subject to the terms of a consent protective order approved by all parties; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the names or identifying information of intelligence officers within the Special Services Command running resume shall not be disclosed consistent with the protective order referred to in the preceding paragraph. Defendants are directed to file an unredacted copy of this document with the Court under seal; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall supplement their production of recorded police channel communications to account for any technical deficiencies, questions regarding authenticity, or unaccounted for periods of time in the produced audio tapes.
SO ORDERED.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge October 30, 2007

2

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES RAMSEY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

)

Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case arises from arrests in Pershing Park on September

27, 2002 during demonstrations in connection with World Bank and

International Monetary Fund meetings in Washington, D.C.

Plaintiffs represent a class of individuals who were arrested

during the morning of the demonstrations. Plaintiffs claim

violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment

rights, as well as false arrest, imprisonment, and conversion.

Pending before the Court is the defendants’ motion to propound

limited written discovery to the absent class members. Upon

review of the motion, response and reply thereto, the applicable

law, and the entire record, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion.

I. BACKGROUND The D.C. Circuit’s January 13, 2006 opinion details the
events at Pershing Park on the morning of September 27, 2002, the aftermath of such events, and the involvement of the District of

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 2 of 13
Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”). See Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C. Cir. 2006). This Court’s July 10, 2007 Memorandum Opinion details the involvement of the federal defendants1 in those same events. The District of Columbia defendants (“District defendants”) and the federal defendants now both move the Court to allow written interrogatories to be propounded to the absent class members in this litigation. While the District and federal defendants have filed separate motions, their arguments and proposed interrogatories are virtually identical. The plaintiffs have filed a joint opposition and defendants filed a joint reply. Thus, the motions will be addressed concurrently in this opinion.
Defendants seek information regarding the absent class members’ activities and experiences before, during, and after their arrest at Pershing Park and their subsequent confinement. Specifically, defendants want to know the details regarding the absent class members’ participation in any demonstration activities before they entered Pershing Park on September 27, 2002; any physical or physiological injuries sustained or
1 The federal defendants include: the United States; Gale Norton, Director of the National Park Service, in her official capacity; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in his official capacity; Richard Murphy, acting Commander of the Special Forces Branch of the U.S. Park Police, in his official and individual capacity; and unidentified officers, supervisors, and law enforcement agencies, in their official and individual capacities.
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 3 of 13
property loss that occurred as a result of being arrested at Pershing Park; and any effects the experience may have had on the class members’ plans to participate in any future demonstrations. See Dist. Def.’s Mot., Ex 1; Fed. Def.’s Mot. Ex. 2. Defendants contend this information is
critical to determine whether the police defendants intentionally conspired to arrest almost 400 people at Pershing Park in order to execute unlawful preemptive arrests for the purpose of taking off the streets persons who were at all times acting lawfully so the class members could not exercise their First Amendment Rights, or whether, as the defendants contend, the police were in good faith attempting to cope with roving groups of demonstrators who unilaterally took to the streets without permits or other lawful authorization.... District Def.'s Mot. at 11. Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the grounds that defendants have not met the standards which authorize discovery against absent class members in our circuit.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs the
administration of class action lawsuits and provides for the efficient and fair administration of controversies where the class suing or to be sued is sufficiently numerous, shares common claims, and is adequately represented by named plaintiffs whose claims are typical of the rest of the class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). The rule envisions a “truly representative suit to avoid, rather than encourage, unnecessary filing of repetitious papers and motions.” American Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538,
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 4 of 13
550 (1974). “It is undisputed that the purpose of Rule 23 is to prevent piecemeal litigation to avoid both a multiplicity of suits on common claims resulting in inconsistent adjudications and the difficulties in determining the res judicata effects of a judgment.” Donovan v. University of Texas at El Paso, 643 F.2d 1201, 1206 (5th Cir. 1981).
Federal Rules 33 and 34 regulate discovery. While discovery against absent class members under Rules 33 and 34 cannot be had as a matter of course, the “evolving view” is that the Court has the power under its authority to manage class actions under Rule 23(d)2 to permit reasonable discovery when the circumstances of the case justify it. United States v. FEOC Trucking Employers, Inc., 72 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D.D.C. 1976)(allowing limited discovery upon a showing of necessity). In Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir. 1977), the defendant did not engage in any pre-trial discovery nor did it ask the Court to certify subclasses. The D.C. Circuit rejected defendant’s request for post-trial discovery of the absent class members, though opined that discovery of absent class members would be permissible in certain cases. Specifically, the Court declared that discovery against absent class members could not be had as a matter of course, but
2 Rule 23(d)(5) empowers the Court to make appropriate orders to deal with procedural matters in class actions. See F.R.C.P. 23(d)(5).
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 5 of 13
may be had “relevant to the decision of common questions, when the interrogatories or document requests are tendered in good faith and are not unduly burdensome, and when the information is not available from the representative parties.” 566 F.2d at 187. In a related case, the Circuit warned that discovery against absent class members “can be a tactic to take undue advantage of the class members... and further that Rule 23... contemplates that absentee parties shall remain the passive beneficiaries of class suits, [therefore] courts have found it necessary to restrict availability of discovery against absentees to those instances in which a need can be shown.” Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 231, 236 (D.C. Cir. 1977)(internal citations omitted). Finally, the Manual for Complex Litigation explains that “[o]ne of the principal advantages of class actions over massive joinder or consolidation would be lost if all class members were routinely subjected to discovery.” Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) (2004) § 21.41 at 302.
III. ANALYSIS Defendants insist that discovery against the absent class
members is critical to their right to a fair trial and seek leave to propound 27 interrogatories to the 281 class members who have been identified based upon MPD arrest records for Pershing Park for September 27, 2002. While defendants concede that both this
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 6 of 13
Court and the Court of Appeals have determined that the arrests at Pershing Park were unlawful, Dist. Def.’s Mot. at 11 (citing Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565, 568 (D.C. Cir. 2006)), they contend that discovery is critical to the resolution of multiple issues, namely: whether defendants intentionally conspired to unlawfully arrest people, whether police motivation was malicious and conspiratorial, whether the actions of the protestors justified police action, whether the great majority of persons arrested were not directed or forced into the park by police but rather voluntarily entered the park after unlawfully marching through the streets; and whether the named representatives fairly represent the class, or, as defendants allege, that most people forced into the park were not political activists, but rather bystanders, observers, or non-demonstrators. See Dist. Def.’s Mot. at 11-14. In addition to the above claims, the federal defendants also allege that class discovery is necessary to establish that the federal defendants came to Pershing Park for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and thereafter rendered lawful assistance in response to such a request by the MPD. Fed. Def.'s Mot. at 12. Finally, all defendants argue that class members’ activities before, during, and after their arrests are critical to a determination of damages in this case. Dist. Def.’s Mot. at 14; Fed. Def.’s Mot. at 17.
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 7 of 13
The Court agrees that in certain circumstances, discovery against absent class members may be permitted. See Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir. 1977); United States v. FEOC Trucking Employers, Inc., 72 F.R.D. 101 (D.D.C. 1976); Disability Rights Council v. WMATA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63424 (D.D.C. 2006). However, the Court finds that the circumstances of this case do not warrant this unusual measure.
In United States v. FEOC Trucking Employers, the United States sought relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination in the trucking industry. 72 F.R.D at 104. In evaluating plaintiff’s request for discovery against absent defendant class members, the Court declared that discovery could be had only when the circumstances of the case justify such action.
The most important relevant circumstances are that the party seeking the discovery must demonstrate its need for the discovery for purposes of trial of the issues common to the class, that the discovery not be undertaken with the purpose or effect of harassment of absent class members or of altering the membership of the opposing class, and that the interrogatories be restricted to information directly relevant to the issues to be tried by the Court with respect to the class action aspects of the case. Id. The Court allowed discovery against defendant absent class members because the Court determined the information sought was necessary to the trial of common class issues and neither plaintiffs nor the named defendants had the information. Id. at 104-05.
7

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 8 of 13
In the instant case, defendants have not made a showing of necessity. Defendants have proposed 27 interrogatories for the absent class members which concern the class members’ activities on September 27, 2002 and beyond. Specifically, interrogatories 1-15 inquire into the class members’ activities prior to their arrest, and include questions regarding whether class members walked on streets or sidewalks, whether they obeyed traffic laws, whether they believed it was legal to walk or ride in the street, the route class members walked or rode to reach the park, and the approximate number of people class members observed walking or riding in the street. Def.’s Interrogatories, p. 7-9. Defendants contend this information is crucial to defend against plaintiffs’ claims, and that it specifically speaks to the existence of a police conspiracy, unlawful police motivation, and justification for the mass arrest. Def.’s Reply at 16. Plaintiffs respond that this information is not necessary because they have not averred civil conspiracy on behalf of the class and that defendants’ other arguments in support of discovery are nothing more than post-hoc justification for arrests already declared unlawful. Pl.’s Opp’n at 3, 6.
The Court is not persuaded this information is necessary, or even relevant, to the officers’ motivation on September 22, 2007. Absent class members cannot testify to the state of mind of the defendants, nor can they speak to whether defendants agreed to
8

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 9 of 13
deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights. Rather, only defendants can present this information to the jury.
Defendants further contend that this information is necessary to establish that “there was a real, significant and unlawful incident of roving demonstrations in the streets... which precipitated the arrests in Pershing Park....” Def.’s reply at 5. Again, defendants have failed to show necessity. No one disputes the presence of demonstrators in the District of Columbia on September 27, 2002. Defendants have access to hundreds of officers who can testify to their own observations of any lawlessness that may have taken place. This information is not unavailable from other sources such that only the absent class members can provide it. C.f. FEOC Trucking Employees, 72 F.R.D. at 105. Furthermore, whether or not absent class members participated in any such acts is irrelevant at this point, because this Court and the Court of Appeals have already determined that defendants lacked probable cause to arrest all the people in Pershing Park, whether or not specific individuals among them may have engaged in any earlier unlawful activity. 338 F.Supp.2d 48, 58 (D.D.C. 2004) aff’d by Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565, 576 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Interrogatories 16-27 inquire into the class members’ experience of the arrest itself and any potential injuries they may have suffered. Defendants claim these questions are
9

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 10 of 13
necessary to determine damages, stating that, “given the decisions rendered by this Court and the Court of Appeals, damages may be the major issue in the trial of this case.” Def.’s Reply at 8. However, inquiries into individual damages are not issues “common to the class” as Dellums requires. 566 F.2d at 187. As plaintiffs point out, there have been multiple groups of settlement pertaining to the September 27, 2002 arrests and in not one of those settlements or related offers of judgment has there been an individualization of damages on any basis. Pl.’s Opp’n at 14 (citing Settlement Agreement [doc. no. 99] in Julie Abbate, et al. v. Chief Charles Ramsey, et al., Case No. 03-0767 (EGS); Joint Praecipe Regarding Accepted Offer of Judgment [doc. no. 306] in Jeffrey Barham, et al., v. Charles Ramsey, et al., Case No. 02-2283 (EGS); Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment by Enright [doc. no. 144], Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment by Chastain and Young [doc. no. 190] in Rayming Chang, et al. v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 02-2010 (EGS)). While the settlement of related cases is certainly not dispositive of a damage calculation in this case, it does undermine defendants’ contention that an individualized assessment of damages is the only means of resolution to plaintiffs’ claims.
Defendants also rely on Disability Rights Council v. WMATA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63424. There, the Court allowed limited
10

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 11 of 13
discovery against the absent class members who had submitted written complaints against WMATA’s “MetroAccess” service for disabled riders. The Court found that “because these statements will be relied upon and because these customers may be witnesses, WMATA has the right to discovery beyond what the absent class members have said to establish the factual incorrectness of what was said or to see if their experiences were frequent or aberrational.” Id. at 5. The circumstances in the instant case are distinguishable. First, the WMATA absent class members had affirmatively come forward and submitted declarations detailing their individual experiences of dissatisfaction, effectively choosing to be part of the litigation. Second, unlike in the instant case, liability rested upon those declarations. Here, liability has all but been decided and the Court has already determined that the class members’ pre-arrest activities are irrelevant to whether defendants had probable cause to arrest them.
Finally, defendants allege that the conduct and testimony of the 17 named class representatives is not representative of the almost 400 members of the class. Dist. Def.’s Mot. at 16. Defendants argue that plaintiffs “should not be allowed to try their case to the jury on the...anecdotal testimony of the 17 class representative plaintiffs, who have been selected by plaintiffs’ counsel.” Id. The Court has already certified this
11

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 12 of 13
class, and in so doing found, as it was required to do under Rule 23(a), that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Defendants apparently believe this class was improperly certified and argue that discovery against absent class members is somehow a remedy for this error. The Court is confident in its prior certification ruling and rejects defendants’ argument.
In addition to the above, the federal defendants contend that discovery against the absent class members is necessary to establish that the federal defendants came to Pershing Park for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and thereafter rendered lawful assistance in response to such a request by the MPD. Fed. Def.'s Mot. at 12. The Court rejects this argument for substantially the same reasons articulated above. The federal defendants have failed to show the necessity of this information and that this information is unavailable from other sources. Furthermore, it is doubtful the absent class members can provide this information at all. Defendants’ own witnesses are the proper parties to speak to the federal defendants’ “law enforcement purpose” or any requests made by the MPD.
12

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-AK Document 358 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 13 of 13

IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the
information sought in defendants’ interrogatories is not necessary to defendants’ case, nor is it unavailable from the representative parties. Because these are sufficient grounds upon which to deny defendants’ motion, the Court will not reach plaintiffs’ allegations of bad faith and intent to delay the litigation. Defendants’ motion to propound written discovery to absent class members is therefore DENIED. An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge November 8, 2007

13

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 312 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

ORDER

Pursuant to the status reports filed on January 12 and 17,

2007 and the status conference on January 17, 2007, and upon

consideration of the plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay of

Discovery, it is by the Court hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery

[Dkt. No. 311] is GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court lifts the stay on all

discovery except for the discovery directed at officers who have

been sued in their individual capacities and have pending

qualified immunity motions in either this case and/or the Chang case, including Richard Murphy, Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre Harrison,

Michael Smith, Michael Fitzgerald, and Brian Jordan; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties in the Chang and Barham

cases shall continue to coordinate for purposes of pre-trial

discovery; and it is

1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 312 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 3
FURTHER ORDERED that discovery shall resume effective immediately and shall conclude by no later than NOVEMBER 16, 2007 as to all matters other than those areas excepted above; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Court should be promptly informed of any discovery disputes that the parties are unable to resolve among themselves, should they arise; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that depositions for Charles Ramsey and Peter Newsham shall take place by no later than AUGUST 24, 2007; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash the District’s Defective Offer of Judgment [Dkt. No. 193] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as it appears to be mooted by the District’s most recent Offer of Judgment [Dkt. No. 302] accepted by some of the plaintiffs; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendant District of Columbia’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 230] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling at the close of discovery; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint report and recommendation for further proceedings by NOVEMBER 30, 2007; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that a status hearing is scheduled for DECEMBER 12, 2007 at 11:00 a.m.
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 312 Filed 06/27/07 Page 3 of 3

SO ORDERED.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge June 27, 2007

3

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 376 Filed 11/21/07 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

)

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

) CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civ. Action No. 02-2010 (EGS) Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)

ORDER Upon consideration of defendant District of Columbia’s Motion for a Protective Order, the response and reply thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the District of Columbia is protected from any obligation to designate a witness to testify about any decision to prosecute or not prosecute as sought by topics one

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 376 Filed 11/21/07 Page 2 of 2

and three of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition dated October 30,

2007.

SO ORDERED.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge November 21, 2007

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

RAYMING CHANG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

)

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, et al., ) )

Defendants.

)

)

Civ. Action No. 02-2010 (EGS) Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case arises from arrests in Pershing Park on September

27, 2002 during demonstrations in connection with World Bank and

International Monetary Fund meetings in Washington, D.C.

Plaintiffs represent a class of individuals who were arrested

during the morning of the demonstrations. Plaintiffs claim

violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment

rights, as well as false arrest, imprisonment, and conversion.

Pending before the Court is defendant District of Columbia’s

Motion for a Protective Order pertaining to a Rule 30(b)(6)

deposition noticed by the plaintiffs. Upon consideration of the

motion, the response and replies thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record, the Court GRANTS the motion. I. BACKGROUND
The D.C. Circuit’s January 13, 2006 opinion details the events at Pershing Park on the morning of September 27, 2002, the aftermath of such events, and the involvement of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”). See Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Discovery has been ongoing in this case for several years and the case is now nearing a posture for trial.
On October 30, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) stating their intent to depose individuals designated to testify on behalf of the District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”). The District of Columbia now moves the Court for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to limit the scope of the noticed deposition. Plaintiffs’ notice seeks to inquire about three topics relating to the arrests. Defendant’s motion concerns only topics one and three. Specifically, topic number one inquires about the “decision...to prosecute or not prosecute those persons arrested at Pershing Park on September 27, 2002 and the reasons therefore.” Topic number three seeks information regarding the “creation of Notices
2

of Infraction for persons arrested on September 27, 2002.” Pl.s’ Joint Notice of Deposition, at 2-3. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Rule goes on to state that a party may seek a protective order from the Court, upon a showing of good cause, to protect the party “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” by ordering, inter alia, “that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). It is pursuant to this provision that defendant seeks a protective order, limiting the scope of plaintiffs’ noticed deposition to prohibit any inquiry under topic number one (the decision not to prosecute class members) and allowing only limited inquiry under topic number three (the creation of Notices of Infraction)1.
1 The Court relies on defendant’s representation in its reply to the Barham plaintiffs’ opposition that some inquiry will be allowed regarding the creation of the Notices of Infraction so long as the questions do not implicate the OAG’s decision not to prosecute plaintiffs. See Def.’s reply at 4. (“Conversely, to the extent that inquiry in this area may not be related to decisions whether or not to initiate prosecutions, the District
3

III. ANALYSIS In support of its motion for a protective order, defendant
contends that topics number one and three of the Notice of Deposition improperly inquire into areas protected by prosecutorial immunity. Defendant argues that because a prosecutor’s decision to initiate prosecution is subject to absolute immunity, they are equally shielded from discovery into the basis for that decision. The Court agrees.
In initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case, prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil suits for damages. Imbler v. Patchman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). To hold otherwise would “prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor's duty that is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.” Id. at 427-28. “The purpose of conferring absolute immunity is to protect officials not only from ultimate liability but also from all the time-consuming, distracting, and unpleasant aspects of a lawsuit, including discovery.” District of Columbia v. Jones, 919 A.2d 604, 611 (D.C. 2007).
Plaintiffs contend they are neither alleging prosecutorial misconduct nor seeking recovery from the District based on the prosecutors’ decisions, and therefore immunity is not implicated. The Court rejects this overly narrow view of the absolute
will produce witnesses on Topic Number 3.”) 4

immunity conferred on prosecutors performing advocacy functions. The reason absolute immunity defeats a case at the outset, as opposed to after trial, is in part to spare the official the tribulation and expense of defending the suit at all. Requiring prosecutors to defend their prosecutorial discretion in a litigation setting, regardless of whether they are the named defendants, implicates the same concerns the Supreme Court articulated in Imbler. Namely, the Court feared that “harassment by unfounded litigation would cause a deflection of the prosecutor's energies from his public duties, and the possibility that he would shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his public trust.” Id. at 423. See also Gray v. Poole, 243 F.3d 572, 576 (D.C. Cir. 2001). As the parties in this case are well aware, discovery in civil actions can be a lengthy and burdensome experience. This Circuit has observed that “[e]ven the need to find the time and money for a defense would have a chilling, if not paralyzing, effect on an official's willingness to speak out, in the exercise of his discretion, to further the public interest.” Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enter., Inc. v. Smithsonian Inst., 566 F.2d 289, 292 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
The Court finds that the principles of prosecutorial immunity are meant to ensure that neither the specter of damages liability nor the litigation process itself weakens the
5

prosecutor’s ability to engage in the “vigorous decision-making” required by the office. See Moore v. Valder, 65 F.3d 189, 193 (D.C. Cir. 1995). "Whether to present a case to a grand jury, whether to file an information, whether and when to prosecute, whether to dismiss an indictment against particular defendants, which witnesses to call, and what other evidence to present are advocatory decisions” and thus absolutely immunized. Id. at 193 (citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 n. 33). Because topic number one of plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition inquires directly into these immunized decisions, the Court finds that a protective order is warranted. In so far as questions under topic number three make similar inquiries, they will be likewise prohibited.
IV. CONCLUSION The information sought in topics number one and three of
plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition dated October 30, 2007 is protected by prosecutorial immunity. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for a protective order is GRANTED. An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge November 21, 2007

6

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 352 Filed 10/30/07 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES RAMSEY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

)

Civ. Action No. 02-2283 (EGS)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties’ Joint Motion for a

Protective Order Encompassing Address and Contact and Other

Personal Information Related to Arresting Officers, and the

record herein, it is hereby:

ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the District of Columbia shall produce

to the plaintiffs within five (5) calendar days of the date of

this order the following information as pertains to each of the

arresting officers, J. Christianson (Badge # 3534), T. Michael

(Badge #3588), Riddle (Badge D201), A. Watson (Badge #0324), and

F. Jarrot (Badge# 3959) who arrested individuals in connection

with the September 27, 2002 Pershing Park mass arrest except for

those officers who the District of Columbia shall present for

deposition either without a subpoena or based upon a subpoena

authorized to be received by the MPD Office of General Counsel on

behalf of the individual officer:

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 352 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 2

- Full name; - Present or last known business address and telephone number; - Present or last known home address and telephone number; - Social security number; - Present and last known title, occupation, employer; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ counsel shall receive and use such information for the purposes of litigation only; that such information shall be maintained in confidence and not disseminated or released by plaintiffs’ counsel except as may be needed to locate such individual and/or serve such individual with legal process or a subpoena as may relate to litigation; and that no party shall place such information in a court filing unless such information itself is filed under seal.
SO ORDERED.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge October 30, 2007

2

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475 Filed 04/21/09 Page 1 of 1

~niteb ~tutes ([ourt o£ J\pp£uis
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT .

No. 07-5305

RECEIVED.september Term, 2008

JEFFREY BARHAM, ET AL.,

APR 1 7 2009 FILED ON: FEBRUARY 20, 2009

APPELLEES Clerk, U.S. District and

UNITEDSTATESCOURTO APPEALS

Bankruptcy Cou rts

fOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CJRCU1T1

~ fllfD~S; ~""l LEE SALAZAR, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ET AL.

O·

L ~ APPELLANTS

CLERK

Consolidated with 07-5306

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No.02cv02283)

Before: SENTELLE, ChiefJudge, and HENDERSON and GARLAND, Circuit Judges·

JUDGMENT

These causes came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and were argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the case be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date.

r==~:=:~====::::::=C=====-=====:;t Per Curiam

MANDATE

""nu~.,t to the P
IsSUEn:
BY:

n. of Fed. fl. APP.f>m.41Ca)
~ to I (j~

FOR T~COURT: --Mjk J{L~er, CIVerk
BY: /S! /I \;~r~-"l,.v.

ATTACO: _ Amendjng order

{,

~.

_ ~jnion
Ordl!r en tests

Michael C. McGrail Deputy Clerk

Date: February 20,2009
Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge Sentelle. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 1 of 21

~nib~b ~tates QIourt of J\ppeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 6, 2008

Decided February 20, 2009

No. 07-5305 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS .

FOR DISTRICT Of COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

JEFFREY BARHAM, TAL.

-_..- -

APPELLEES FILED

c t"B
I L..

2 0
.

2nM W7-

v.
CLERK
KENNETHLEESALAZAR,~~~~------------~
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ET AL.,
APPELLANTS

Consolidated with 07-5306

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No.02cv02283)

Marina Utgoff Braswell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for federal appellants. With her on the briefs were Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney. Rudolph Contreras, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered an appearance.
Jonathan Turley argued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefwere Carl Messineo, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, and Daniel C. Schwartz.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 2 of 21
2
Before: SEN1'ELLE, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by ChiefJudge SENTELLE.
Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.
SENTELLE, Chief Judge: Appellant Richard Murphy, a . United States. Park Police official at the time of the events in
questiofr, was. sued in his. personal capacity for his. participation in a mass arrest that occurred dUFing demonstrations in September 2002 in protest against policies of the World Bank and IntemationalMonetary Fund. Murphy argued to the district court that he was entitled to qualified immunity, under which he would be shiehted from liability. The district court denied Murphy's motion to dismiss and fo1' summary judgment on the lJas.i..s of qualified immunity. and Murphy filed the instant interlocutory appeal. Controlling precedent establishesthat our jurisdiction t(} hear interlocutory appeals in qualified immunity cases does not extend to appeals in which the underlying decision relies. upon resoluti(}n of disputed facts. Because Murphy's claim to qualified immunity depends on resolving facts.in dispute, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's determination.
Background
The factual history of this. case has. been set forth in detail
before. See Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565,569-71 (D.C. Cir. 2006)~ Barham v. Ramsey, JJ& F.Supp.2d 48, 52-54 (D.D.C.
2004). We will therefore focus only on the facts necessary to resolve the issue before us.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 3 of 21
3
On Friday, September 27,2002, mass demonstrations were held in Washington, D.C., protesting the meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Around 8:15 a.m. a large group of individuals began to gather in General John Pershing Park ("Pershing Park" or "Park"), located on Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., between 14th Street and 15th Street, across from the White House grounds. At about this same time, officers ofthe Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD"), led by Assistant Chief Peter Newsham, began stationing around the perimeter of the Park. About an hour later, United States Park Police officers, after being informed ofthe gathering, arrived at Pershing Park led by appellant Major Richard Murphy, who, at that time, was Commander of the Special Forces Branch of the U.S. Park Police. Around 9:20 a.m., an MPD officer asked Murphy to assist the MPD in surrounding the Park, at which point Park Police officers were sent to the north and south sides of the Park. Murphy had two separate exchanges with MPD Assistant Chief Newsham. According to Murphy, during the first exchange, Newsham asked Murphy if those in the Park could be arrested for deqlonstratiI)g without a permit. Murphy responded that they could be arrested, but that it was Park Police policy not to arrest unless the demonstrators had first been warned and given an opportunity to disperse. Soon thereafter, Newsham informed Murphy that the individuals in Pershing Park were going to be arrested for failure to obey a police order to disperse that was given to them before they entered the Park.
Around this same time MPD ChiefCharles Ramsey arrived on the scene. He too was informed by Newsham that the individuals in-the Park were going to be arrested. All persons in the Park were subsequently arrested for failure to obey an officer. Many ofthose arrested later brought suit against various police agencies and officials, alleging constitutional, statutory, and common law violations stemming from the arrests. MPD Chief Ramsey, Assistant Chief Newsham, and Park Police

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 4 of 21
4
Major Murphy were als.o sued in their individual capacities. The ess@nce o.fthe suit is. that the defendants. violated the plaintiffs.' co.nstitutio.nal rights when the police co.rdo.nedo.ffPershingPark and then initiated a mass. arrest. In the district court, Murphy filed a motio.n to. dismiss. the case against him o.n gro.unds o.f qualified immunity. Pursuant to Int '/ Action Ctr. v. United States, "[qlualified immunity protects go.vernment officials 'from liability fo.r civil damages. insofaf as their co.nduct does. no.t violate clearly established s.tatutory or co.nstitutio.nal rights o.fwhich a reas.onable perso.n Wo.uld have kno.wn. ", 365 F.3d 20, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). The district Co.urt denied the mo.tion. Murphy appeals.
Discussion
We have had prior occas.io.n to. address. two. o.ther claims o.f quaLified immunity by Po.Lice officials invo.lvedin a mass arrest. See Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565,569-71 (D.c. Cir. 2006) ("Ramsey"). We began our analysis there, as. we do. here, by noting that 2& U.S.C. §. 129-1 gives. appeltate co.urts.jurisdiction o.ver "final decisio.ns." o.f the dis.trict courts. Id at 571. Onliaarily, disHict Co.urt final decisio.ns are appealable o.nly at the conclusion- of district COUI1 pro.ceedings. There are, however, ceftai.B. types- o.f district court decisions that are too. important and too independent o.f the merits of the action to await the end o.f district Co.urt proceedings befOFe appellate review is. allowed. See Cohen v. BenefiCial Indus. Loan, 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949): Included in this catego.ry of interlocuto.ry apf)eals is a denial by the district court of qualified immunity. As we noted in Ramsey, qualified immunity shields. certain deserving o.fticials from undergoing the burdens of litigation, and if denial' of a claim o.f qualified immunity were no.t immediately appealable then the doctrine Wo.uld be eviscerated. 434 F.ld at 571. However, "this extensio.n of appellate

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 5 of 21

5

jurisdiction is not endlessly elastic." Id at 577. In Johnson v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that immediate appellate review is not allowed if a district court's decision "resolved a factrelated dispute about the pre-trial record." 515 U.S. 304, 307 (1995); see also Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 571.

In Ramsey, MPD Police ChiefRamsey and Assistant Police Chief Newsham moved to dismiss the suits against them under the doctrine ofqualified immunity. The district court denied the motions, and on interlocutory appeal we affirmed the district court's denial of Newsham's motion. Nevertheless, we concluded that we lacked jurisdiction to review the court's denial of Ramsey's motion.

In discussing Newsham's qualified immunity claims, we

first made reference to the two-part inquiry set forth in Saucier

v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194,201 (2001), for determining whether a

government official is protected by qualified immunity.' See

Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 572. Under that inquiry, a court determines

the threshold question of whether, taking the facts in the light

most favorable to the alleged injured party, "the facts alleged .

show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right." Id.

(quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201). Ifthat question is answered

in the affirmative, the court then asks whether the constitutional

right was clearly established. Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 572 (citing

Saucier, 533 U.S. at201). In Newsham's case, we answered the

threshold question in the affirmative, as the plaintiffs' complaint

was that they were arrested without probable cause while

engaged in acts protected by the First Amendment. Ramsey, 434

I.

F.3d at 572. We also answered the second question in the

'We note that the Supreme Court recently held. "that the Saucier protocol should not be regarded as mandatory in all cases." Pearson v. Callahan, - S. Ct. -, 2009 WL 128768 (U.S.), at *11 (Jan. 21, 2009).

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 6 of 21

6

affirmative, finding that Newsham did not have probable cause to make the ma&S arrest&. because he "had no basi&. for &uspecting that all ofthe occupants ofPersning Park were then breaking the law or that they had bt:oken the law before entering the Park." Id. at 574. And we further noted the "fluidity of movement in and around the Park," as well as Newsham's not denying that many individuals in the Park were law-abiding, as additional grounds for concluding that there wasno probable cause for the mass-arrest. Id. We c()l1sequently affirmed the district court's denial ofNewsJ:lam's requestfor qualified immunity. ld. at 579.

We next considered Chief Ramsey'So qualified immunity

claim. Id. at 577-78. We noted that,. according to. the record

assembled for summary judgment, at some point after Newsham

ordered the Park to be cord()ned off, Ramsey arrived on the

scene. Id. at 577. At this point, Newsham stated to Ramsey

that there was. probable cause to arrest those in the Park for

offenses committed before they entered the Park. Id. Ramsey

stated that he was. unaware that the Park contained individuals

who were not previously observed engaging in unlawful

activity. Id at 578. Ramsey's situation was different from

Newsham's, we observed, in that Ramsey denied. knowing that

the Park had not been cleared of law-abiding individuals. Id

We noted that if this claim by Ramsey was. valid then Ramsey

might be entitled to-qualified immlHlity. Id. But we also noted

that, because of contradictions in the record concerning

Ramsey's claim, this factual question could not be answered

definitively. Id Accordingly,. under the Supreme Court's

holding in Johnson v. Jones, we concluded that the denial oJ

quafified immunity to Ramsey was not reviewable on

}

interlocutory appeal. !d. at 577-5.78.

)

In its considerati()n of Murphy's request for qualified immunity in the present case, the district court relied on our disposition ofNewsham' s qualified immunity claim in Ramsey.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 7 of 21

7

Chang v. United States, Civ. Action Nos. 02-2010, G2-2283,

2007 WL 2007335, at *10 (D.D.C. July 10,2007). The district

court first noted that, in denying Newsham's claim for qualified

immunity, this court rejected Newsham's argument that there

was, probable cause for the arrests based on the failure to obey

a police order. Id The district court also noted that we held that

Newsham had presented "no facts capable of supporting the

proposition that Newsham had reasonable, particularized

grounds to believe that every one ofthe 386 people arrested was

observed committing a crime." ld (quoting Ramsey, 434 F,3d

at 574). Further, the court noted that this court had pointed to

the fluidity of movement in and around the Park preceding the

arrests as a further basis for discrediting any attempt by

.~

Newsham to argue probable cause. Chang, 2007 WL 2007335,

at *10 (citing Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 574). The district court

found no relevant distinction between Murphy's conduct and

Newsham's. Chang, 2007WL 2007335, at *10. In its opinion

the court concluded that "Murphy' cannot point to undisputed

facts that suggest that the Park Police had a basis for believing

that Pershing Park contained only individuals for whom there

was probable cause to make an arrest." Chang, 2007 WL

2007335, at *9. The court determined that, when Murphy

arrived at the Park, he observed people entering and leaving the

Park, he made no independent assessment ofwhether there was

probable cause to arrest all individuals in the Park, and he 'did

not see any violent activity by individuals there. Chang, 2007

WL 2007335, at *10. The dis.trict court further determined that,

although Newsham told Murphy that those in the Park were

being arrested for disobeying a police order, Murphy did npt

know which order, who disobeyed it, or when the disobedience

occurred. Id Based on these determinations, the district court

concluded that it was not reasonable for Murphy, in participating

in the mass arrests, to rely only on Newsham's statement that all

of the individuals in the Park were being arrested for failing to

obey a police order. Id The district court consequently denied

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 8 of 21
8
Murphy's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Id.
On review, however, we conclude that Murphy's situation is more analogous to Ramsey's than to Newsham's, and consequently we lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. According to Murphy, early on the morning of the demonstrations, he was in Park Police mobile headquarters near the White House~ his main objective at the time of the demonstrations was the security of the White House. While at mobile headquarters, Murphy received reports that protestors in different parts ofthe city were marching in the streets, as well as reports that intersections were being disrupted. After receiving a radio transmission that protestors were in Pershing Park, across from the White House grounds, Murphy left mobile headquarters and proceeded towards the Park. Upon arrival, he observed individuals in the Park, and he was then stopped by an MPD official who asked Murphy for Park Police help in holding those individuals in the Park. Murphy stated that at this time he was "scampering around," and that he felt this was an "urgent situation" as he wanted to prevent movement of those in the Park towards the White House. Soon thereafter, Murphy was approached by Assistant Chief Newsham, at which time Newsham asked Murphy if the group in Pershing Park had a permit to demonstrate there. After Murphy advised that the group did not, Newsham asked Murphy if those in the Park could be arrested for demonstrating without a permit. Murphy replied that they could be arrested, but that it was Park Police policy to order such groups to disperse first. Murphy then overheard a high ranking MPD official state that those in the Park had been involved in acts of vandalism and other crimes before they had-arrived at the Park. A second conversation with Newsham then ensued, during which Newsham indicated to Murphy that the individuals in the Park were going to be

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 9 of 21
9
arrested for failing to obey a police order to get out of the street made prior to their congregating in the PMk. Murphy ordered his men to assist MPD in forming lines around the Park to prevent those inside from leaving. At the same time, however, it appears that Murphy saw, at least from a distance, individuals freely coming and going from the Park.
In Ramsey, we noted that a critical question in deciding Ramsey's claim to qualified immunity turned on "[t]he plausibility of his claim that he thought all law-abiding bystanders had been evacuated, while hundreds of lawbreakers were corralled into an enclosed area." Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 57&. Ramsey claimed that he did not know that Pershing Park had not been cleared of law-abiding bystanders before the mass arrests were conducted. Id We found, however, that that claim was not undisputed, and consequently that Johnson v. Jones barred us from exercising jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal on factual issues. Id at 577-78. Here, ifMurphy shows that he had an objectively reasonable "basis for believingthat PershingPark contained only individuals for whom there was probable cause to make an arrest," id. at 577, then he may be entitled to qualified immunity. But the record assembled so far does not lead to a determination as to whether Murphy in fact has this basis. Murphy states that he trusted Newsham that probable cause existed to arrest those in the Park. But this statement is not enough to establish an undisputed fact. Following our disposition of Chief Rams.ey' s. claims. in Ramsey, we conclude that Murphy's claim that he had a basis for believing that there was. probable cause to arrest all individuals in Pershing Park cannot be determined on the record before us. See id Moreover, this issue is not for this. court to decide~ rather, it is.an issue to be determined by a fact finder, and "the District Court was therefore correct in allowing the claims against [Murphy} to proceed." Id.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 10 of 21

10

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons we conclude that we lack

jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of Murphy's

+-

motions regarding qualified immunity.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 11 of 21
KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring: Although I agree with my colleagues that we lack juris.diction to review the district court's denial ofMurphy's claim to qualified immunity because of a factual dispute, I write separately to emphasize a point oflaw. In United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985), the United States Supreme Court concluded that a police officer may make a Terry stop. in "objective reliance" on a "flyer or bulletin ... issued on the basis of articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion." 469 U. S. at 232. The Court noted that even if the flyer were issued absent reasonable· suspicion, "the officers making the s.top may have a good-faith defense to any civil suit." Id Similarly, an officer may rely on another officer's determination of probable cause to make an arrest, which will often be the case in a rapidly evolving-and potentially deteriorating-situation like the one confronting Murphy. See id at 231 ('''[EJffective law enforcement cannot be conducted unless police officers can act on directions and information transmitted by one officer to another and . . . officers, who must often act swiftly, cannot be expected to cross-examine their fellow officers-about the foundation for the transmitted information. '" (quoting United States v. Robinson, 536 F.2d 1298, 1299 (9th Cir. 1976»; United States v. Loundmannz, 472 F.2d 1376, 1379 (D.C. Cir. 19"72) (probable cause exists if officer ordering arrest has "adequate first-hand knowledge to support a finding of probable cause" even though arresting officer does not have first-hand knowledge); Daniels v. United States, 393 F.2d 359,361 (D.C. Cir. 1968) ("There is no requirement that the arresting officer have sufficient firsthand knowledge to constitute probable cause. It is enough that the police officer initiating the chain of communication either had firsthand knowledge or received his information from some .person . . . who it seems reasonable to believe is telling the truth."). As noted by the majority, Murphy statesthat he relied on Newsham's determination that probable cause existed to arrest the hundreds ofindividuals in Pershing Park for failure to obey a police order before enteringthe Park. Murphy'sreliance, however, must be objectively reasonable for him to be clothed

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 12 of 21
2
with qualified immunity. Murphy states that he "had nothing in the way of an opinion or reason . . . to contradict or not to believe what [Newsham] was telling [him] was true." Tr. of Deposition ofRichard Murphy at 252: 10-13, Barham v. Ramsey, Civ. No. 02-2283 (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2005) (Dep. Tr.). But Murphy's statement that he "s[aw] citizens coming and going from a distance further on the south side ofPershing Park in the vicinity of 14th Street," Dep. Tr. 229: 13-15, creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether his reliance on Newsham's determination that probable cause existed to arrest every individual in the Park was objectively reasonable. Murphy differs in this respect from Newsham, whom we earlier found not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565,568 (D.C. Cir. 2006). I read the majority opinion, Maj. Op. at 9, to leave open the possibility that Murphy, like MPD Chief Charles Ramsey, may yet have qualified immunity if the facts are resolved in his favor. See Barham, 434 F.3d at 568 ("[Ramsey's] entitlement to qualified immunity thus turns on whether he knew that the park had not been cleared of individuals who were not observed breaking the law. Based on the record assembled for summary judgment, it is not possible for us to answer that question. Because Ramsey's claim for immunity turns on the resolution of factual disputes regarding his participation in the events ofSeptember 27,2002, his appeal is premature.").

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 13 of 21

~nit£.h ~tttt£s ([ourt of J\pp£ttls
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 07-7136

September Term, 2008

FILED ON: MARCH 6, 2009

ELLIOT WOLFF, PERSONALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST ESTABLISHED UNDER ARtICLE III OF

THE ESTATE OF EGON WOLFF, APPELLANTS
v.

I UNITED STATES COURT Of APPEALS
FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

WESTWOOD MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL., APPELLEES

FllEOL-l _M_.t._!1_6_2009_-J

I _

CLERK

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No.06cv01234)

Before: ROGERS, BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this cause is hereby affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date.

Per Curiam

MANDATE
l'ursll&nt to the prollklone of Fad. R. App.Pro.41ta)

fSSUEll:
BY:
ATTAaI£D: _ _

Mending order
~inion
0rdM" on tests

Michael C. McGrail Deputy Clerk

Date: March 6, 2009 Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Brown.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 14 of 21

~nitea ~tates ([ourt of J\ppeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 5,2008

Decided March 6, 2009

No. 07-7136

ELLIOT WOLFF, PERSONALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST
I ESTABLISHED UNDER ARTICLE III oF11tWfmSfAm~raF APPEALS
WOLFF, FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT·
ApPELLANTS----~---
FILED [,lkR 6 2009
v.

WESTWOOD MANAGEMENT LLC, ET AL.CLERK ApPELLEES '----------...........;

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No.06cv01234)

I
I

Leslie D. Alderman III argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants.

Paul J. Kiernan argued the cause and filed the brief for

appellees.

Before: ROGERS, BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 15 of 21
2
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN.
BROWN, Circuit Judge: This case concerns the shelf-life of an arbitration provision in a superseded contract. Appellant Elliot Wolff sued Westwood Management LLC and various related individuals and entities for breach of fiduciary duties and derivative claims. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding-over Wolffs vehement objections-that all of his claims were covered by a mandatory arbitration clause. Finding no error, we affirm.
1.
In 1971, Elliot Wolffs father, Egon, invested in a real estate venture-the District of Columbia Joint Venture (DCJV}-organized by Dr. Laszlo Tauber that developed a piece of District real estate into an office building complex known as the Transpoint building. For his $20,000 investment, Egon received an interest of 0.5% in the land and 0.25% in the building. The agreement Egon signed when he invested in the DCN (DCJV Agreement) contained an arbitration clause, providing that "[t]he parties agree not to enter into any court action in any dispute which may arise during construction and management of the office building complex and agree that any dispute or controversy that cannot be amicably settled will be submitted to arbitration[.]"
Egon Wolff died in November 1984, and his interest in the DCJV passed to the appellants, Elliot Wolff and a trust established from Egon's estate. On December 6, 1984, Dr. Tauber wrote a letter to the DCN investors, along with those who had invested in other ventures he had organized, informing them that his "long standing goal has been to merge all the partnerships into one single partnership. This

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 16 of 21
3
must be achieved now with no further delay." The letter made the merger "effective the 1st of January, 1985," and gave the investors four options: to sell their interest, to become a class "B" partner in the new entity, to become a class "C" partner in the new entity, or-for anyone who "ha[d] second thoughts and [wa]s not willing to cooperate"to "put his/her interest in trust." The new entity, referred to as the Consolidated Partnership, was reorganized into various other entities over time.
Though the record is silent on this point, the parties agree Elliot Wolff declined to join the Consolidated Partnership. Wolff alleges he asked Dr. Tauber to hold his DCJV interest in trust. As a result, Wolff was not a party to the Consolidated Partnership agreement nor was he an owner of, or investor in, any of the successor entities. Rather, his ownership interest of 0.5% in the land and 0.25% in the building that made up the Transpoint Building complex, acquired via the DCJV Agreement, was held for him in trust by Dr. Tauber and his successors.
After Dr. Tauber died in 2002, management and control of all the ventures stemming from the Consolidated Partnership went to appellee Westwood Management. In February 2004, Westwood Management sold the Transpoint Building and the adjacent land and paid the investors. Wolff filed this lawsuit in 2006:
alleging breach of fiduciary duty and derivative claims, all resulting from the management and sale of the Transpoint building and the adjacent lot. He alleges that defendants used funds from various mortgages and refinances of the Transpoint building and the adjacent lot for purposes other than for use

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 17 of 21

4

by and for the Transpoint building and that

adjacent lot; specifically, to make

improvements to other properties and for

defendants' enrichment.

)

Wo(ffv. Westwood Mgmt., 503 F. Supp. 2d 274,278 (D.D.C.

)

2007).

The district court granted defendants' motion to compel arbitration. In response to Wolffs argument that the DCN Agreement and its arbitration clause were extinguished by the creation of the Consolidated Partnership, the district court concluded the agreement to arbitrate survived the expiration of the DCJV Agreement and applied to this dispute. Id at 281. The district court reasoned "[t]he obligations at issue in this case can only have arisen from the DCJV Agreement because there was no other agreement with defendants that Wolff entered into." Id. The district court noted that if the arbitration clause was to be read broadly-"any dispute or controversy . . . will be submitted to arbitration"-then it encompasses all matters that touch upon the contract. Id at 282. If read narrowly-"any dispute which may arise during construction and management of the office building complex"-then it covers only specified types of disputes. Id. The dispute at issue in this case was covered under either reading of the arbitration clause. Id at 283. The court therefore concluded the parties had entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement that covered the claims in this case, and dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed.
}
)

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 18 of 21
5
II.
The "determination that the parties have contractually bound themselves to arbitrate disputes-a determination involving interpretation of state law-.is a legal conclusion subject to our de novo review, ... but the findings upon which that conclusion is based are factual and thus may not be overturned unless clearly erroneous." Bailey v. Fed Nat'l Mortgage Ass 'n, 209 F.3d 740, 744 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Under District of Columbia law, "arbitration is predicated on the consent of the parties to a dispute, and the determination of whether the parties have consented to arbitrate is a matter to be determined by the courts on the basis of contracts between the parties." Bailey, 209 F.3d at 746; see also Air Line Pilots Ass 'n v. Fed Express Corp., 402 F.3d 1245, 1248 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
"[A]n order to arbitrate [a] particular grievance should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage." Air Line Pilots Ass 'n, 402 F.3d at 1248 (quoting United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582-83 (1960)). "The Arbitration Act establishes that, as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability." Moses H Cone Memorial Hasp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1,24-25 (1983).
Wolff contends the arbitration clause in the DCJV Agreement does not apply to this dispute because the agreement terminated in 1985. And, appellants argue, their

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 19 of 21
6
claims arise under the alleged trust; not the DCJV. But, as the district court observed, "an arbitration clause is enforceable after the expiration of a contract when the dispute is over an obligation created by the contract." Wolff, 503 F. Supp. 2d at 280. We agree.
The Supreme Court has observed that "a party cannot be compelled to arbitrate any matter in the absence of a contractual obligation to do so. Adherence to these principles, however, does not require us to hold that termination of a collective-bargaining agreement automatically extinguishes a party's duty to arbitrate grievances arising under the contract." Nolde Bros. v. Local No. 358, Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union, 430 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1977). "[E]ven though the parties could have so provided, there is nothing in the arbitration clause that expressly excludes from its operation a dispute which arises under the contract, but which is based on events that occur after its termination." Id at 252-53. Moreover, the Court in Nolde Bros. found a "presumption in favor of postexpiration arbitration of matters unless 'negated expressly or by clear implication,' but that conclusion was limited by the vital qualification that arbitration was of matters and disputes arising out of the relation governed by contract." Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190,204 (1991) (quoting and discussing Nolde Bros., 430 U.S. at 255) (emphasis added).
With these principles in mind, it is easy to see the district court did not err when it held the "agreement to arbitrate manifested in the DCJV Agreement survives termination of the DCJV Agreement and that it applies to this controversy." Wolff, 503 F. Supp. 2d at 281. The claims in this case, after all, "can only have arisen from the DCJV Agreement because there was no other agreement with [appellees] that Wolff entered into." Id Even assuming a valid trust was created

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 20 of 21
7
under District of Columbia law when the DCJV Agreement terminated in 1985, appellants' claims are "disputes arising out of the relation governed by the contract," Litton Fin. Printing Div., 501 U.S. at 204, because the Wolffs' ownership interest in the land and the building-the res of the alleged trust-was created under the DCJV Agreement. We conclude that the agreement to arbitrate "any dispute which may arise during construction and management of the office building complex" survived the expiration of the DCJV Agreement and compels appellants to submit their claims to arbitration.
The remainder of appellants' arguments can be dismissed in short order. Appellants' unclean hands argument goes to the merits of their claims rather than their arbitrability. There is no allegation that appellees have unclean hands with respect to the agreement to arbitrate itself. "[I]n deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular grievance to arbitration, a court is not to rule on the potential merits of the underlying claims." Air Line Pilots Ass 'n, 402 F.3d at 1248; see also Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395,406 (1967) (allegation of fraud in the inducement of a contract is arbitrable, at least absent a claim of fraud in the inducement of the agreement to arbitrate). The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing appellants' request for discovery under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellants failed to demonstrate, both to the district court and on appeal, how discovery related to the merits of the claims would have assisted them in opposing the motion to compel arbitration. Appellants also argue that the DCN Agreement's arbitration clause lacks sufficient detail as to the material terms of the agreement. This argument, which was not presented to the district court, is not properly before us. See, e.g., Albrecht v. Comm. on Employee Benefits of Fed. Reserve Employee Benefits Sys., 357 F.3d 62,66 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (argument not

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 475-1 Filed 04/21/09 Page 21 of 21 8
presented to the district court ordinarily waived on appeal); District a/Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (same) (citing cases). The same is true of appellants' argument that the district court erred by dismissing this case rather than staying it under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act; no one requested a stay from the district court.
III.
Accordingly, the order of the district court compelling arbitration and dismissing the complaint is
Affirmed.
J

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595 Filed 03/05/10 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES RAMSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 02-CV-2283 (EGS)(JMF)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT AND, NOTICE TO CLASS,
AND NOTICE OF FAIRNESS HEARING

The class representatives, and District of Columbia, Charles H. Ramsey in his official and individual capacities and Peter J. Newsham in his official and individual capacities, respectfully move the Court for an order (1) granting preliminary approval of the proposed Class Settlement Agreement; (2) approving the accompanying Notice to the Class, Proof of Claim form, and procedures for mailing, publication and internet posting stated in the accompanying proposed order; and (3) setting July 15, 2010 as the deadline for class member responses to the notice, requesting exclusion or asserting objections.
As describe herein, the parties propose the following deadlines: April 30, 2010 – Initial notices sent by mail. July 15, 2010 – Deadline for Claimants to file Proof of Claim form, object or opt out August 1, 2010 – Class Administrator files final report with Court September 1, 2010 – Parties file responses to any objections September 15, 2010 – Fairness hearing
1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595 Filed 03/05/10 Page 2 of 2

The parties propose that the Court schedule a fairness hearing to occur in mid-September at a date convenient to the Court, and respectfully propose September 15, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.
In support of this motion, the parties rely on the accompanying memorandum.

Respectfully submitted,

PETER J. NICKLES Attorney General for the District of Columbia
GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division
ELLEN A. EFROS [250746] Assistant Deputy Litigation Division
MONIQUE A. PRESSLEY [464432] Senior Assistant Attorney General Equity Section I 441 4th Street, NW, 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-6610 Fax: (202) 741-0424 monique.pressley@dc.gov
SHANA L. FROST [458021] Assistant Attorney General
/s/ Chad Copeland_____________________ CHAD COPELAND [982119] Assistant Attorney General Equity Section I

/s/ Carl Messineo, [450033] Mara Verheyden-Hilliard [450031] PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 617 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 232-1180 (202) 747-7747 fax
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: March 5, 2010

2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 1 of 34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES RAMSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 02-CV-2283 (EGS)(JMF)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT, NOTICE TO CLASS, AND NOTICE OF FAIRNESS HEARING

For reasons set forth herein, the proposed Settlement Agreement warrants preliminary

approval  of  this  Court,  subject  to  the  Court’s  final  consideration  at  a  fairness  hearing.

The Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate, in the best interest of the

Class as a whole, and in satisfaction of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process requirements.

Plaintiffs address below the equitable relief that has issued through settlement and legislative

action to effectively change the landscape, both practically on the streets and legally in the courts

and under law, as pertains to police conduct during mass demonstrations.

The monetary relief is fair, reasonable and adequate, resulting in payments to class

members that is around three times that received by class members who claimed identical

damages in the same conditions of confinement for September 27, 2002 protest-related arrests in

the case of Burgin v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 03-02005 (EGS).

The attorneys fees, likewise, are reasonable.

1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 2 of 34

The plaintiffs submit, herein, proposals to direct class notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal, including opportunity for class members to request exclusion from the monetary terms of settlement.
A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached herein as Exhibit 1. I. The Settlement Agreement is Fair, Reasonable and Adequate
A. Equitable Relief The Court certified the Barham class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), on the basis of claims  that  “by  arresting  all  persons  found  in  [Pershing]  park  on  the  morning  in  question   [September 27, 2002] without giving a lawful order to disperse or allowing class members to obey such order, defendants engaged in a singular police action on grounds generally applicable to  the  class.”  Barham v. Ramsey, 217 F.R.D. 262, 264. The Court acknowledged that, while monetary claims for damages existed, the predominant issue was the uniform action by police against the class as a whole, specifically the question of whether civil rights violations were perpetrated by the execution of the mass arrest without any warning or order to disperse. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). The most fundamental and dominant need was the prevention of recurrence. Barham, 217 F.R.D. at 264 (Court acknowledges  that  in  each  of  the  “related  case”  lawsuits  filed  pertaining  to  the  September 27, 2002  arrests,  “[a]ll  four  actions  seek  common  relief  from  the  District  of  Columbia,”  specifically   equitable  relief  barring  the  use  of  police  lines  to  “trap  and  arrest”  protestors  and  others,   expungement relief1 and damages).

1

Upon motion of the District of Columbia (Barham Docket No. 386; Chang Docket No. 365), the Court

granted expungement relief to the Barham class (Barham Docket No, 405), to the four remaining Chang plaintiffs

(Chang docket no. 381) and also issued to the four remaining Chang plaintiffs orders declaring the arrest of each to

be  “null  and  void”  and  authorizing  each  to  deny  the  occurrence  of  the  arrest  without  penalty  (Chang docket Nos. 382

– 385). Similar relief was issued in the settlement of the claims of the seven plaintiffs in Abatte v. Ramsey, Civil

Action No. 03-00767 (EGS) (Docket No. 99).

2

s

1

a Ce

a

The certified class was not restricted to protestors. The class represents the interests of all
those arrested, including protestors, non-protestors, journalists, bystanders, National Lawyers
Guild legal observers, tourists, interested persons who approached to observe or hear  protestors’  
message, and passers-by.2
1. The Need for Equitable Relief: The Alleged Pattern and Practice Violations Existing at Time of Complaint
Plaintiffs to this lawsuit, and other protest related lawsuits, have alleged that during a
period of years starting with the April 15, 2000 arrests at issue in the matter of Becker, et al. v.
District of Columbia, et al., the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) engaged in a practice of
trapping and detaining protest groups, including in each of the following circumstances:
April 15, 2000, claim of trap and detain mass arrests at protests timed to coincide with the Spring annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. See Becker v. District of Columbia, Civil Action 01-00811 (PLF)(JMF) (class action with Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) as class counsel).
January 20, 2001, allegedly targeting protestors at the first Inauguration of George W. Bush and engaging in trap and detention tactics. See International Action Center, et al. v. United States, et al., Civil Action No. 01-00072 (GK) (plaintiffs represented by the PCJF attorneys).
Saturday, September 29, 2001, in Murrow Park in front of IMF headquarters. Protestors claim that police lines allegedly appeared suddenly, trapping and detaining hundreds of persons without notice.
April 22, 2002, at a march organized to raise awareness about U.S. policies towards Latin America, District and federal police allegedly deployed police lines without warning and encircled, trapped and detained demonstrators.
September 27, 2002, mass arrest at protests timed to coincide with the Fall annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank. Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action 02-02283 (EGS)(JMF) (class action with Partnership for Civil Justice Fund as class counsel).

2

As best as Class Counsel can determine, based on the record, there were no distinctions made in this

singular police action with the limited exception that some journalists were treated favorably and were allowed to

leave the arrest area.

3

s

1

a Ce

a

March 22, 2003, at protests against the invasion of Iraq, marchers were allegedly trapped and detained by police lines suddenly deployed at the front and the rear of the march on a city block in downtown D.C.
The Partnership for Civil Justice filed the class complaint in Barham as the most recent in
a  series  of  lawsuits  it  had  filed  to  challenge  the  “trap-and-arrest”  tactic,  describing  the  case  as  
follows in the complaint.
This complaint is the most recent in a series of lawsuits with a shared factual allegation: That the D.C. Metropolitan   Police   Department’s   Civil   Disturbance   Units maintain and execute unconstitutional tactics to disrupt lawful protest and assembly including specifically the routine use of mobile police lines to interfere with freedom of association, assembly, speech and free movement; and the use of administrative detention, false imprisonment and false arrest tactics in which the CDUs will trap protesters (and others in physical proximity) on all sides, seize, detain and arrest those trapped/seized in the absence of probable cause. First Amended Complaint at 3, ¶¶4 – 5 (Docket Number 16).
This  Court  recognized  and  described  that  “[t]he  heart  of  [plaintiffs’]  ‘trap  and  arrest’  
charge  is  that  police  cordoned  off  the  Pershing  Park  area,  essentially  ‘trapping’  the  protestors
within the park, and then initiated a mass arrest without first warning the protestors that they
must  disperse  to  avoid  arrest.”  Barham v. Ramsey, 338 F. Supp.2d 48, 54 (D.D.C. 2004).
Where the trap-and-arrest tactic has led to custodial arrests, protestors assert that they
were held overnight in harsh conditions of confinement, bound wrist-to-ankle in a contorting and
painful  position  that  prevented  extension  of  one’s  back,  deprived  access  to  food  and  water,  and  at  
times to bathroom facilities, and often required to sit on buses for hours. Equitable relief was
sought to prevent these conditions from occurring in the future.
2. The Claims for Equitable Relief Have Been Resolved
As reflected in the timeline above, the April, 2000 IMF/World Bank related mass arrest
that is the subject of the Becker class action was a predecessor incident to the September, 2002

4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 5 of 34
IMF/World Bank mass arrest. The subsequent September 2002 incident was challenged, with the same class counsel, in this case of Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action 02-02283 (EGS)(JMF).
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, whose attorneys were class counsel in both the Becker case and the Barham case, made a simultaneous demand for equitable relief in a settlement demand letter dated June 29, 2004 and issued in both the Barham and Becker cases. Because the alleged injuries and challenged tactics experienced in both cases were substantively similar if not identical in important respects,  each  class’  demands  for  equitable  relief  to  prevent   recurrence were advanced in the same correspondence. These demands and their resolution are described further, below.
As a consequence of this litigation, and other litigation and factors, the Council of the District of Columbia authorized an investigation into pattern and practices of alleged misconduct by police in the context of mass demonstrations. After issuing a report containing many adverse findings against the police and, in particular, with respect to Chief Ramsey, the Council enacted remedial  legislation,  the  “First  Amendment  Rights  and  Police  Standards  Act  of  2004,” D.C. Law 15-532 (April 13, 2005), 52 DCR 2296.
The legislative history of this Act reflects that one of the expressly stated legislative purposes was to eliminate the need for equitable relief to issue from this Court and to enact into statutory law the reasonable equitable demands of plaintiffs to this litigation.
Barham class counsel Mara Verheyden-Hilliard testified at the public hearing on the legislation. Upon completion of Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard’s  testimony,  Judiciary  Committee   Chairperson Kathy Patterson stated, and asked, as follows:
One of the things that we had looked at, in doing this legislation, was trying to bring an end to the [protest] lawsuits here, from the standpoint of taking away all the injunctive relief sought, or taking away the need for injunctive relief. Let me just ask you . . . if this legislation as proposed today were the law of
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 6 of 34

the District of Columbia tomorrow, would there still be injunctive relief needed, that you needed to seek, in your view? Media Exhibit A, Committee Chair Kathy Patterson, Council of the District of Columbia, Committee on the Judiciary, Public Hearing, Bill 15-968, "First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004," (October 7, 2004) (emphasis added).

Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard  responded  with  a  qualified  “Yes,”  acknowledging  the  breadth  of  

the  Council’s  proposals  as  well  as  areas  for  modification  and  improvement.    Id.

The “First  Amendment  Rights  and  Police  Standards  Act  of  2004”  (Ex.  5)  became  

effective law on April 13, 2005.

During the period from April, 2005 through January, 2010, there has been no recurrence

of the use of police lines to engage in the mass trap-and-arrest  of  protestors.  The  plaintiffs’  

original claims for prospective relief barring the trap-and-arrest practice have been resolved by

the fact that these tactics have not been repeated and by the First Amendment Rights and Police

Standards Act of 2004, as well as by other equitable relief secured through settlements.

The  plaintiffs’  equitable  demands,  detailed  in  the  June  29,  2004  equitable  relief  demand   letter3 transmitted jointly on behalf of the classes in Barham and Becker, were not limited strictly

to the use of police lines.

Plaintiffs presented not a minimal set of demands, but a comprehensive package of

demands that intruded on police operations as plaintiffs deemed necessary to protect

constitutional rights in light of alleged police misconduct and disruption to free speech activities.

The expansive set of demands sought to address the following alleged practices: the use

of police lines to surround, trap-and-arrest  protestors  and  others;;  arrests  based  on  “demonstrating  

without  a  permit”;;  use  of  ineffective and/or unlawful protest dispersal orders; the conditions of

confinement and restraint imposed on persons arrested in protests; the practice of restraining

3

Communications in settlement discussions are maintained as strictly confidential. As such, plaintiffs have

not included the demand letter as an attachment, but have requested and received from the District its permission to

summarize the demands for the purposes of this submission.

6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 7 of 34

arrestees by using flexcuffs to bind wrist-to-ankle; to place objective limits on the lengthy

duration of confinement before release, the effect of which allegedly kept protestors off of the

streets and unable to engage in protected activities; to prevent the delivery of misinformation

regarding options for release, which plaintiffs assert appeared calculated to prevent protestors

from  challenging  the  legality  of  their  arrests  by  telling  persons  that  unless  they  chose  to  “post  

and  forfeit”  that  they  would  be  jailed  for  days  before  a  Judge  would  see  them.  The  demands  also  

sought to impose public record-keeping and report-issuance requirements.

As  above,  the  Council’s  enactment  of  the  “First  Amendment  Rights  and  Police  Standards  

Act  of  2004”  was  crafted  to  address  the  relief  sought  by  plaintiffs.  A  comparison  of  the  

comprehensive package of equitable relief demanded by the Barham plaintiffs in litigation, to

that enacted by the Council is reflected in the following table:

Equitable Demands by Barham Class (as reflected in June, 2004 demand letter) Restrictions on Use of Police lines.
Restrictions on Dispersal or Terminations of Demonstration Activity

Statutory Enactment Under the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004 (Ex. 5) Sec.  108,  “Use  of  police  lines,”  with  identified   exceptions, generally prohibits police from “using  a  police  line  to  encircle,  or  substantially   encircle,  a  demonstration” Sec. 107(d),  “The  MPD  shall  not  issue  a   general order to disperse to participants in a First  Amendment  assembly  except”  under   three exceptional and defined circumstances. Establishes  that  “[a]n order to disperse or arrest assembly participants shall not be based solely on the fact that a plan has not been approved for  assembly”  or  lacks  a  permit.

7

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 8 of 34

Equitable Demands by Barham Class (as reflected in June, 2004 demand letter)
No Arrests for Parading or Demonstrating Without a Permit.

Statutory Enactment Under the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004 (Ex. 5) Sec. 105(a),  declares  “it  shall  not  be  an offense to assemble or parade on a District street, sidewalks, or other public way, or in a District park,  without  having  provided  notice”  or   receiving a permit4 or an approved plan from the municipality.

Prohibition of Wrist-to-Ankle  “Hogtying”  or   Methods of Restraint Causing Inhumane Stress and Duress
Limitations on Period of Detention and Arrest
Provision of Food and Water to Arrestees

Sec. 142, modifies the existing regulations pertaining to parade permits to explicitly exclude from its scope protests or First Amendment assemblies. Sec.  111,  “Use  of  handcuffs,  plastic  cuffs,  or   other physical restraints on persons arrested in connection with a First Amendment assembly,”  provides  that  “no  such  person  shall   be restrained by connecting his or her wrist to his or her ankle, and no such person shall be restrained in any other manner that forces the person to remain in a physically painful position.” Sec.  112,  “Prompt  release  of  persons  arrested   in connection with a First Amendment assembly,”  establishes  a  standard  that  persons   eligible for release be released within 4 hours from  the  time  of  arrests  and  requires  “that  an   officer holding a supervisory rank document and explain any instance in which a person arrested in connection with a First Amendment assembly who opts for release pursuant to any lawful release option or who is not charged with any offense is not released within 4 hours from  the  time  of  arrest.” Sec. 112, For persons not released within a reasonable period of time, requires provision of “food  appropriate  to  the  person’s  health.”

4

The Act struck from the D.C. Code and/or ceased the use of statutory references to demonstration

“permits,”  in  an  effort  to  convey  that  prior  permit  or  permission  is  not a requirement of law to engage in street

protest.

8

s

1

a Ce

a

Equitable Demands by Barham Class (as reflected in June, 2004 demand letter)
Written Statement of Rights to Release

Statutory Enactment Under the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004 (Ex. 5) Sec.  113,  “Notice  to  persons  arrested  in   connection with a First Amendment assembly of  their  release  options,”  requires  written   notice clearly indicating the availability and alternatives  for  “obtaining  a  prompt  release,”   which is required to be issued in English and Spanish and offered in any other languages as is reasonable to ensure notice for persons who are limited in English proficiency.

Expungement of all Arrest Records in Connection with the Class Action Mass Arrests
Record-Keeping Obligations

Sec. 302, established detailed requirements for the content of such written notice. Not addressed in the Act. Expungement relief is secured through the class action litigations and settlements. Sec. 112, requires the Chief to issue an annual public report addressing specific matters related to arrest and prompt release of persons in connection with First Amendment assemblies.

Addressing other issues raised in various court cases, including other PCJF lawsuits, and
in  the  public  hearings  regarding  police  conduct,  the  “First  Amendment  Rights  and  Police  
Standards  Act  of  2004,”  also:
Requires that officers assigned to First Amendment assemblies are equipped with easily visible or “enhanced”  badge  or  name  identification  that  remains  visible  and  allows   identification even if officers are wearing riot gear. See Ex. 5, Sec. 109, Sec. 321.
Requires specific arrest documentation to be completed at a time reasonably contemporaneous with arrest. Id. Sec. 110.
Requires, in the limited circumstances where dispersal of a protest may be authorized under law, that the MPD shall issue one or more audible orders to those assembled using an amplification system or device, and shall provide persons with an adequate time to disperse and with a clear and safe route for dispersal. Id. Sec. 107.
Prohibits the deployment of officers in riot gear to First Amendment assemblies, except in limited circumstances where there is a danger of violence and, further, requires the commander at the scene to issue a written report to the Chief which is to be made
9

s

1

a Ce

a

available to the public following any deployment of officers in riot gear. Id. Sec. 116.
Restricts and further regulates any use of chemical irritants, and requires written report issuance whenever such weapons are used. Id. Sec. 116.
Removes reference and  use  of  the  term  “permits”  in  connection  with  protests,   establishing a policy that authorizes protest without prior notice to the police. Id. Sec. 106.
Allows demonstration-related merchandise to be vended within a protest area without a Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs vending permit or license. Id. Sec. 105(h).
Restricts police from interfering with the use of stands or structure ancillary to protest activity. Id. Sec. 105(g).
Prohibits the imposition of user fees upon persons or groups organizing First Amendment assemblies or demonstrations. Id. Sec. 105(e).
Affirms  that  resolution  of  a  criminal  charge  through  the  “post-and-forfeit”  procedure   “shall  not  be  equated  to  a  criminal  conviction”  and  cannot  be  relied  upon  by  any  D.C.   court or agency to impose any sanction, penalty, enhanced sentence or civil disability. Id. Sec. 302.
The  “First  Amendment  Rights  and  Police  Standards  Act  of  2004”  also  addresses  issues  
raised by student and professional journalists who cover protests. See Ex. 5,  Sec.  114,  “Police-
media  relations.”  The  Act  requires  the  issuance  of  new  regulations  to  grant  enhanced  privileges  
of access to journalists. Id. The Act mandates that media not be denied the access that is
available to members of the general public and be granted additional physical access to areas
closed to the general public in order to assist their ability to report on the event. Id.; See also 24
D.C.M.R. § 2104 (regulations, as promulgated, which among other things establish the policy of
the  MPD  is  “that media representatives shall have maximum access to First Amendment
assemblies.  .  .  consistent  with  maintaining  public  safety.  .  .  .”).
The  relief  in  the  “First  Amendment  Rights  and  Police  Standards  Act  of  2004”  is  not  
subject to police modification. It is not regulation or policy or procedure. It is statutory law.
10

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 11 of 34
Unlike MPD policies, which may be overridden within the authority of the Police Chief, statutory law binds the Department, including the Chief. It does not expire after three years, or at any time.
With respect to enforceability, the Act itself provides that it may be used by plaintiffs in their  private  causes  of  action  in  litigation.  Section  117,  “Construction,”  provides  that   “[p]rovisions  of  this  title  are  intended  to  protect  persons  who  are exercising First Amendment rights in the District of Columbia, and the standards for police conduct set forth in this title may be relied upon by such persons in any action alleging violations of statutory or common law rights.”  Ex.  5,  Sec.  117.
The Council rejected the need to enact a new and additional private right of action within the Act, on the grounds that protestor-plaintiffs alleging false arrest and other violations had no obstacle to access to court jurisdiction under existing causes of action under common law, constitutional law and statutes, including 42 U.S.C. §1983, which were invoked by the Barham plaintiffs and those in the related cases in the instant litigation.
The  Act  contained  a  section  that  generally  required  “all  relevant  MPD  personnel”  to  be   properly  trained  in  the  “handling  of,  and  response  to,  First  Amendment  assemblies”  including   “instruction  on  the  provisions  of  this  [Act],  and  the  regulations  issued  hereunder.”  Ex.  5,  Sec.   115.
However, class counsel had received multiple reports from persons seeking to engage in protest activity about encounters with police officials who, notwithstanding this general training requirement, allegedly gave them misinformation or allegedly simply did not know the fundamental details established by the Act. Accordingly, recognizing this as an area of substantive  deficiency,  plaintiffs’  counsel  has  sought  to  impose  through  the    Becker settlement
11

s

1

a Ce

a

terms a more specific regimen of training that is sufficiently specific to remedy these
circumstances. See Ex. 4 (Settlement Agreement in Becker); See also, February 4, 2010 Order
(Becker Docket No. 357) (granting preliminary approval to Becker Settlement Agreement).
Supplementing  and  extending  the  Act’s  training  requirements,  in  the  proposed  class  
action settlement reached in Becker v. District of Columbia, the class has sought, and the District
has  agreed  to  mandate,  that  commencing  not  later  than  120  days  following  the  Court’s  final  
approval of settlement:
“[E]ach  District  of  Columbia  Metropolitan  Police  Department  (“MPD”)  officer  will  be   required to take training on the Standard Operating Procedures for Handling First Amendment Assemblies and Mass Demonstrations. The training records for this course will  be  preserved  for  a  minimum  of  three  (3)  years.”  See Ex. 4, Proposed Becker Settlement Agreement, at 8.
“[T]he  MPD  shall  refer  each  police  officer  currently  assigned,  or  assigned  in  the  future,   to  responsibilities  encompassing  or  related  to  the  handling  of  First  Amendment  ‘mass   demonstration’  activities  to  the  provisions of the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004, D.C. Code §§ 5-331.01, et seq. and the implementing rules that are  posted  on  the  MPD’s  intranet  site.”  Id. at 9.
“[T]he  MPD,  shall,  through  the  MPD’s  website,  make  available  to  all persons inquiring regarding demonstration permits or related activities a copy of the statute and the rules implementing  the  statute  and  any  forms  governing  First  Amendment  assembly  plans.”  Id.
The Becker class action settlement also includes terms calculated to address particular
deficiencies that uniquely arise in Washington, D.C., because of the frequent deployment of
officers from multiple and various jurisdictions to work jointly alongside the District of
Columbia MPD in the context of mass demonstrations. Accordingly, the proposed Becker class
action settlement requires that
In all situations in which, through mutual aid agreements or otherwise, the District of Columbia obtains the assistance of outside law enforcement agencies for demonstration related duties, the MPD shall brief outside agency commanders of the  requirements  of  the  MPD’s  Standard  Operating  Procedures  for  Handling  First   Amendment Assemblies and Mass Demonstrations and shall assign an MPD officer to each such outside agency unit.
12

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 13 of 34
Ex. 4, Proposed Becker Settlement Agreement at 9. A number of the Barham plaintiffs, in particular those non-class plaintiffs arrested in the
vicinity of Vermont & K on September 27, 2002, were each charged with the offense of “parading  without  a  permit”  and  arrested  without  prior  warning  or  notice.  It  had  been  a  priority   to ensure that this charge, which plaintiffs have long asserted to be a non-arrestable civil infraction, no longer be used by police to arrest and jail protestors. The issue was advanced in the Barham litigation in 2004 in which plaintiffs sought a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin the District of Columbia from Arresting or Prosecuting Persons for Parading Without a Permit. (Barham Doc. No. 144). At the hearing on the motion, the District of Columbia announced that as a matter of policy it would cease the practice of suddenly arresting protestors for parading without a permit. See Barham Doc. No. 168 (denying the motion for preliminary injunction  as  moot  in  light  of  District  counsel’s  representations  in  open  court).
To ensure that MPD officers know that parading without a permit is a non-arrestable offense, in an earlier (February, 2007) settlement of the non-class  Vermont  &  K  plaintiffs’   claims in the Barham matter, the following equitable relief was agreed to by the District of Columbia:
The   Metropolitan   Police   Department’s   Mass   Demonstration   Handbook   and/or   its   successor publication, in the event of a change of title, shall, within 120 days of the entry of judgment upon these terms provide written notice that parading without a permit, demonstrating without a permit, and participating in a First Amendment assembly without a permit are not arrestable offenses. . . Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment (Barham Doc. No. 302-1). Excessive use of force claims were not advanced by the plaintiff class in the Pershing Park litigation. Nevertheless, as affects the conduct of the Metropolitan Police  Department’s   handling of mass demonstrations, the equitable relief that has issued since the time of the Pershing Park incident addresses what plaintiffs in other demonstration cases have alleged to
13

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 14 of 34
have been one cause of use of excessive force by the Metropolitan Police Department during mass demonstrations.
Plaintiffs alleging use of excessive force in the Becker case, as well as at the January, 2001 Presidential Inaugural Parade against protestors, asserted that the suspension by Chief Ramsey of use of force reporting requirements during mass demonstrations sent a message to officers that use of force need not be reported, and by logical extension, would not be investigated or disciplined. The District denies such allegations.
Accordingly, in the resolution of the 2001 Inaugural litigation, in November, 2006, the plaintiffs represented by the Partnership for Civil Justice secured the following relief:
The   Metropolitan   Police   Department’s   Mass   Demonstration   Handbook   and/or   its   successor publication, in the event of a change of title, shall be modified within 120 days to state, in substance, that the requirement that an officer reports use of force, as established in General Order 901.7, shall fully apply in the context of mass demonstration activity where the officer independently – rather than at the direction of a superior officer – determines to apply force and such modification shall be reflected in CDU refresher training as well as the 40-hour [training] course. Where officers utilize force at the direction of a superior officer the current provisions of the Mass Demonstration Handbook [regarding use of force reporting] shall apply. See Settlement Agreement between District of Columbia Defendants and all Plaintiffs, Collectively at 3, International Action Center, et al. v. United States, et al., Civil Action No. 0100072 (GK) (Doc. No. 340-1). The alleged particular tactics that were in play and employed by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in April 2000 and September 2002 and which were sought to be challenged through this litigation have now been addressed through settlement terms and legislative action. The legislation combined with nearly a decade of hard-fought litigation and close judicial oversight has worked successfully to protect the right to dissent and to engage in spirited and vigorous protest and free speech in public fora.
14

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 15 of 34
3. Judicial Determination of the Unconstitutionality of the Barham Class Arrests
The careful consideration and formal rulings of this Court, as affirmed by the D.C. Circuit, have established lasting judicial precedent that stands not only to protect the rights to free speech of protestors in Washington, D.C., but across the nation.
These declarations of constitutional rights and standards are, in and of themselves, a substantial form of equitable and declaratory relief that accrue widespread benefit beyond the immediate litigants.
This Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit provided a critical and detailed articulation of the standards to be followed by police in the context of mass demonstrations.  “[W]here  a  group  contains  persons  who  have  not  been  violent  or  obstructive,   police may not mass arrest the demonstration as a group without fair warning or notice and the opportunity to come  into  compliance.”  Id., 338 F. Supp.2d at 58. The D.C. Circuit affirmed and adopted  the  standards  articulated  by  this  Court,  ruling  that  only  “when  compelling  circumstances   are present, the police may be justified in detaining an undifferentiated crowd of protestors, but only after providing a lawful order to disperse followed by a reasonable opportunity to comply with  that  order.”  Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 575.
The judicial articulations of constitutional standards have been relied upon by protestorplaintiffs advancing claims of mass false arrest against police in other jurisdictions and have been cited and relied upon by courts applying these standards to protect constitutional and free speech rights. See, e.g., Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1158 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of qualified immunity to arresting officers in connection with anti-war protest and march in Albuquerque, New Mexico) (citing Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 574); Beal v. City of Chicago, Civil Case No. 04-2039 (N.D. Ill March 30, 2007) at 10, 12 (citing Barham v. Ramsey,
15

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 16 of 34
338 F. Supp. 2d 48, 58 (D.D.C. 2004)) (denying defendants’  motion  for  summary  judgment  on   false arrest claims in connection with anti-war march and rally at the Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois resulting in mass arrest); Hickey v. City of Seattle, Civil Action No. 00-1672, at 10 (W.D.  Washington,  December  13,  2006)  (“Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C. Cir. 2006) is instructive  here”  in  the  opinion  granting  plaintiffs’  motion  for  summary  judgment  on the issue of probable cause in connection with December 1, 1999 anti-World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, Washington).
B. Expungement Relief Expungement and annulment relief was granted by Court Order dated January 28, 2008 (Doc.  No.  405).  Among  other  relief  set  forth  in  that  Order,  the  Court  did  declare  that  “The  arrests   of the Barham Plaintiffs and the absent class members are hereby declared null and void. Each of the Barham plaintiffs and the individual absent class members is authorized to deny the occurrence of his or her arrest that day without being subject to any penalty of perjury, fraud or other offense premised upon misrepresentation or deception in response to any inquiry, whether posed orally or in writing. These rights accrue to the full benefit of any absent class member regardless  of  whether  an  individualized  entry  of  a  nullification  order  [see  below]  is  entered.” The proposed Barham settlement will provide that each class member be issued an Order as above. See, Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement at 8. C. Monetary Relief The monetary relief proposed for each Barham class member is structured around a baseline expectation of 75% or lesser participation rate.
16

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 17 of 34
In the event that the participation rate is 75% or lesser, each class member shall receive a payment of $18,000. In the event that the participation rate exceeds 75%, the compensation amount will be reduced on a pro-rata basis. See Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement, at 5.
The Barham class member recovery is, therefore, between 250% and 350% greater per claimant than was recovered by the class members in Burgin v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 03-02005 (EGS) (Docket No. 65). The Burgin arrestees were arrested on the same day as the Barham arrestees and the majority merged together for the purposes of confinement. In other words, as a class, the Burgin arrestees from Vermont and K suffered identical injury and identical conditions and durations of confinement as the Barham arrestees. The Burgin class member recovery of no more than $6,000 per claimant was deemed fair, reasonable and adequate5 for the same injuries as experienced by the Barham class members, who would each receive up to $18,000 in compensation.
The monetary terms of the proposed class settlement in Barham are similarly, and comparably, structured to the monetary terms of the proposed class settlement in Becker, which encompasses the claims of nearly 700 persons arrested in Washington, D.C., on April 15, 2000, which has received preliminary approval. See Ex. 4 (Settlement Agreement in Becker); See also,

5

The settlement of claims in Burgin v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 03-02005 (EGS) (Docket No.

65) (preliminary approval order) established a fund of $720,000 to be divided on an equal basis between claimants.

See Consent Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Judgment and Distribution, Notice to Class, Fairness

Hearing, and Schedule, Burgin v. District of Columbia (Docket No. 60) at 4. The Burgin counsel estimated there to

be between 158 to 190 class members. At the time of the motion for preliminary approval, the Burgin counsel

projected the participation of 100 claimants, which would have led to a recovery of $7,200 each. Id. at 6. The Court

Docket reflects there to have been 120 claimant expungement orders entered under seal on August 17, 2007, from

which the undersigned infers there to have been no less than 120 claimants (it is unclear whether the 16 class

representatives are in addition to the figure of 120). Accordingly, in Burgin, the recovery per claimant was no more

than $6,000, which was deemed fair, adequate and sufficient for the identical injury as experienced by Barham class

members. See also id. at 7 (Burgin counsel  preliminarily  projected  “each  Class  Member  who  timely  submits  a  claim  

[will receive]  an  amount  ranging  from  about  $3,500  to  about  $7,000”).

17

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 18 of 34
February 4, 2010 Order (Becker Docket No. 357) (granting preliminary approval to Becker Settlement Agreement).
The Settlement Agreement provides that the payments to class members are to be spread over two municipal fiscal years. Accordingly the first payment, which will be no less than sixty percent of that due to each class member, is to be funded by the end of September, 2010. The remainder is to be funded by no later than, and possibly earlier than, the end September, 2011.
Class Representatives shall share equally in a fund that will provide each $50,000 in compensation for their services on behalf of the class. This has been lengthy and hard fought litigation, and the class representatives have engaged in extensive and repeated discovery, returned to the area for deposition, and been available and have actively participated in the advance of this lengthy litigation and negotiations. The amount of $50,000 is commensurate with the most recent recoveries by individuals who have actively brought and advanced claims as individuals for the same injuries. Class counsel views it as imperative that class representatives receive compensation that is at least commensurate with that which they would likely have recovered if they had advanced claims actively as individual plaintiffs over these past years. In the absence of such commensurate recovery, there would be a severe disincentive for persons to serve as class representatives, a role which entails the same or greater activity as an individual plaintiff along with the additional fiduciary responsibilities and obligations in service to the class as a whole. Class Counsel represents that the class representatives have each served as stalwart advocates on behalf of the class as a whole and have been essential to securing the exceptional results for the benefit of the class overall.
18

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 19 of 34
D. Judicially Enforced Document Management, Retention and Preservation Obligations; Full Funding to Develop and Implement Document Management System
The total monetary commitment the District of Columbia has made through the Settlement Agreement is potentially greater than just the $8,251,333 allocated for the Class Settlement Fund and includes an additional commitment of monies to implement a document management system to prevent any recurrence of evidence loss/destruction.
The Settlement Agreement provides for funding for the Document Management, Retention, and Preservation Obligations for a period of three years, which may be extended by the District for an additional two one-year periods to ensure continued funding. In other words, funding as needed is established for up to a five-year period.
These funds for this system are over and above the $8,251,333 allocated for the Class Settlement Fund and are authorized to be paid from the D.C. Judgment and Settlement Fund, which is a funding source within the District of Columbia municipal budget that provides fiscal resources to settle claims and lawsuits and pay judgments in most types of civil cases filed against the District of Columbia. It is an uncapped fund, and therefore this element of relief satisfies two important characteristics: it provides full funding for the document management system and does not affect the availability of funds for settlements or judgments regarding other lawsuits against the District.
The District has, in the resolution of other class action lawsuits seeking systemic change, previously funded systems needed to facilitate systemic equitable reforms by specifically providing for such funding in the class action settlement agreement. For example, in the class action resolution of Bynum v. District of Columbia, the agreement provided for three million dollars for prison processing facilities development, the existence of which was needed to
19

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 20 of 34
prevent future instances of over-detention. Bynum v. District of Columbia, 412 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D.D.C. 2006). These commitments were properly considered in determining the total valuation of the settlement of claims. Id.
In the Barham resolution, the distinction is that there is no particular dollar amount maximum to the funding of the equitable relief, although the funding is obviously limited by the actual needs of the document management system and the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Within those needs, the parties recognize that the largest financial and technical hurdles will come in the first years of development and implementation of the document management system. There will be significant one-time start-up costs. Technical start-up costs will exist for the development and implementation, from a systems perspective. Other costs, associated with personnel training and the integration of the system into actual case operations, will be significantly greater during initial years of implementation. Once the use and benefits of the system become a part of operations, and personnel are properly trained, then of course the ongoing per-year maintenance costs will not be encumbered by these front-end expenses.
“The   parties’   intent   is   to   fully   fund,   through   this   agreement,   the   acquisition,   development and training costs for the Document Management System, which would be expected to be greater in the initial years of implementation than in subsequent periods, and to establish funding for three years, or as may be extended, a period of time believed to be amply sufficient for the use and benefits of  the  system  to  be  well  established.” Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement at 17 – 18. The  parties’  intent  is  that,  when  the  Settlement  Agreement  does  eventually  expire,  the   start-up costs will have all been covered within the Agreement, the operating expenses during the initial three- to five-year period will all have been covered, and the expected future financial costs will accordingly be limited to maintenance costs. At that time, the use of the system will be incorporated into certain case management procedures and the benefits will be well established.
20

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 21 of 34
While budgeting will, of course, be needed to continue use of the system, the Agreement has been structured and funded to make the system long-standing, cost-effective and essential.
The Settlement Agreement provides for this Court to retain jurisdiction for three years for purposes of enforcement of the Document Management and Retention Requirements in the Agreement. See Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement at 18.
The District has also agreed to the series of requirements set forth below relating to the mandatory indexing, logging and preservation of evidence.
1. Commitment of Funds to Implement New Document Management System The District has agreed to fund, using additional monies from the District of Columbia Judgment and Settlement Fund, a document management protocol or system the function of which is to prevent the recurrence of the destruction of evidence issues that were discovered in the course of litigation. Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement at 13. 2. Mandatory Indexing and Logging of Evidence Under new policies mandated as terms of the Settlement Agreement, the District will now be required to maintain an index, and to log, any documents, items, things, recorded or electronic/computer/digitized material related to a complaint or litigation hold letter for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests. Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement at 9 – 10. This is relief calculated to enforce indexing of evidence, to create an internal audit trail that would alert the District to any missing records or evidence. Id. at 10. 3. Mandatory Evidence Preservation For Protest Related Claims Under  the  Agreement,  “the  OAG  shall  issue  policy  statements  mandating  that  upon   written notice of likely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records pertaining to alleged police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests, the OAG
21

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 22 of 34
shall affirmatively direct in writing and ensure that all documents, records, items, videos or computer files relating to the underlying incident be preserved and affirmatively protected from destruction  for  a  period  of  no  less  than  three  (3)  years.”  Ex.  1,  Settlement  Agreement  at  11.
4. Mandatory Preservation and Indexing of Radio Runs, Command Center Records, and Other Computer Based Recordings or Data Records
Under the Agreement, upon any command or other system activation to assist in the management  of  mass  demonstrations  and  protests,  “all  computer  files,  communications   recordings / radio runs and documents reasonably related to the event shall be indexed and preserved  for  a  period  of  no  less  than  three  (3)  years.”  Ex.  1,  Settlement  Agreement  at  11 – 12.
5. Mandatory Preservation and Indexing of Photographic or Video Recordings Under  the  Agreement,  “whenever  any  MPD  officer  is  assigned  to  (or  with  the  capability   to) engage in photographic or video recording or surveillance of mass demonstration activity or protests;;  documentation  shall  be  maintained  reflecting  the  officer’s  name,  assignment,  the   equipment and recording media issued; and indexing and logging the return of all media. Upon the return of any media, the officer shall document the dates, times, locations and events recorded and affix such information to the media itself or secure to the container that contains the media.”  Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement at 12. The Agreement is explicit that it does not authorize such  surveillance,  but  “is  intended   solely to focus on indexing and record-keeping”  in  the  event  such  media  is  created.  Id. at 12. 6. Office of the Attorney General Required to Report to the Partnership for
Civil Justice Fund, and to Issue Public Report to the Court, Every Six Months During Enforcement Period At six month intervals, for a period of three years, the District of Columbia is required to report to class counsel at the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund regarding measures taken to perform the above-referenced system development, records indexing and maintenance
22

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 23 of 34

requirements. The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund will have opportunity for review and comment. The District shall be afforded an opportunity to consider these comments, after which the final report will be submitted to the Court and published. The comments of the PCJF are required to be published within or as an attachment to the report. See Ex. 1, Settlement Agreement at 12 – 13.
This is an oversight and reporting function that is intended to assure plaintiffs, the Court, and the public that the Document Management, Retention and Preservation goals of the Settlement Agreement are, in fact, advanced and achieved. II. The Attorneys Fees are Reasonable
When  awarding  attorneys’  fees,  the  court  has  a  duty  to  ensure  that  the  claim  for   attorneys’  fees  is  reasonable.  See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).
The Settlement Agreement provides an award of $2,463,333 to Class Counsel as attorneys’  fees  and  costs,  which  is  reasonable.  This  amount  was  determined  in  settlement   negotiations after the amount of recovery to class members was negotiated, and reflects the application of a percentage to certain monetary components in the agreement. The attorneys’ fees are  funded  and/or  allocated  separately  and  independent  of  the  claimants’  recovery.  As  such,  the   award of fees does not decrease the amount received by each claimant. 6

6

Technically,  the  Settlement  Agreement  does  not  create  a  true  common  fund.  “In  a  true  common  fund  case,  

the  attorneys’  fees  would  be  taken  from  a  fund  shared  in  common  with  class  plaintiffs;;  therefore, the amount

recovered  by  plaintiffs  is  reduced  by  the  amount  awarded  in  attorneys’  fees.”  Hensley v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, *36

(1983). In  the  case  at  hand,  the  parties  established  a  separate  attorneys’  fee  fund.  Accordingly,  the  case  does  “not  

present the typical conflict of interest between class counsel and class members that underlies the application of the

percentage of recovery method.”  Vitamins Antitrust Litig., U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25, 067, *38 (D.D.C. July 13 2001).

It  is  appropriate  to  consider  this  to  be  a  “constructive  common  fund”  case,  Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25067, at *36, and to analyze the size of the fund to be the gross settlement funds, inclusive of the total  funds  potentially  available  to  the  claimants,  administrative  costs  and  attorney’s  fees.

That there is a potentiality of unclaimed claimant funds reverting to the District, or being used for the benefit of the class to pay the costs of a document management system to prevent future evidence loss, does not alter the analysis. Herbert B. Newberg and Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions §  14.6  (4th  Ed.  2007  update)  (“[i]n   Boeing Co. v. Van Gemerty, [444 U.S. 156, 100 S. Ct. 745 (1980)] the Supreme Court settled this question [of

23

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 24 of 34
The Class Settlement Fund, i.e., the gross settlement fund inclusive of administrative costs  and  attorneys’  fees,  is  $8,251,333  plus unspecified additional monies as may be paid from the D.C. Judgment and Settlement Fund as needed to create a new document management system and train staff.
When calculating the percentage of the total settlement value that is accounted for in attorneys’ fees, the Court is to count the additional monies to fund equitable relief in determining the valuation of the total settlement resolution. See Bynum, 412 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D.D.C. 2006) (counting the $3 million reverting to the District for purposes of facilities development as component of total value of the settlement, which was $12 million with consideration of that amount; approving attorneys fees of 33% plus expenses).
If one entirely excludes consideration of the monetary recovery attributed to the document management system relief, and considers the total monetary amount of the recovery to be  $8,251,333,  the  percentage  of  attorneys’  fees  would  constitute  approximately  29%.
If one estimates the additional monies needed for procurement, implementation, training and operation of a new document management system to be one million dollars, the total monetary amount of the settlement recovery would be $9,251,333, with the percentage of attorneys’  fees  therefore  constituting  approximately  26%  of  the  aggregate  fund. The D.C. Circuit holds  that  “the  proper  measure  of  such  fees  in  a  common  fund  case  is  a  percentage  of  the  fund.”   Swedish Hosp. v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 1261, 1263 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Many courts and commentators
whether class fund fees are based on the gross settlement or net settlement funds actually claimed] by ruling that class counsel are entitled to a reasonable fee based on the funds potentially available to be claimed, regardless of the amount  actually  claimed”);;  Williams v. MGM-Pathe Commun. Co., 129 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 1997) (reversing award of  attorney’s  fees  because  trial  court  failed  to  base  fee  award  on  the  entire  settlement, rather than the amount claimed); Waters v. Int'l Precious Metals Corp., 190 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 1999) (distribution  of  attorneys’  fees   are to be based on the the funds available to eligible claimants, whether claimed or not; affirming a fee award nearly twice the amount actually claimed by the class from the fund); Masters v. Wilhemina Model Agency, Inc., 473 F.3d 423, 437 (the  “entire  Fund  .  .  .  is  created  through  the  efforts  of  counsel  at  the  instigation  of  the  entire  class”;;  an   “allocation  of fees by percentage should therefore be awarded on the basis of the total funds made available, whether claimed  or  not”).
24

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 25 of 34
recognize the percentage of the fund analysis to be the preferred approach in class action fee requests because it more closely aligns the interest of the counsel and the class, i.e., class counsel directly benefit from increasing the size of the class fund and working in the most efficient manner. Id. at 1266-67.  The  lodestar  approach  “encourages  significant  elements  of  inefficiency”   by  giving  attorneys  and  law  firms  “incentive  to  spend  as  many  hours  as  possible”  and  “a  strong   incentive  against  early  settlement.”  Id.
In the context of the Settlement Agreement, the line item for fees is separate and apart from the line items for payments to the class. Further, were there any reduction in fees, the reduction would likely return to the District of Columbia through reversion provisions that were a necessary condition of settlement.
The percentage in this case, fairly considered to be between 26 – 29% of the gross monetary settlement value, is well within the range of reasonable fees in common fund cases. As the D.C. Circuit surveyed the literature and cases,  it  found  “that  a  majority  of  common  fund  class   action  awards  fall  between  twenty  and  thirty  percent.”  Id. at 1272 ; See also Bynum, 412 F. Supp.  2d  at  85  (“A  1/3  fee  is  within  the  range  of  what  is  customarily  awarded  in  this  District.”);;   Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25067, at *68-69 (awarding 34%); Federal Judiciary Center, Empirical Study of Class Actions in Four Federal District Courts: Final Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (1996) at 69, 90 (reports that most class action fee awards,  in  its  study  of  407  class  action  lawsuits,  “were  between  20%  and  40%  of  the  gross   monetary  settlement”  and  that  “attorneys’  fees  were  generally  in  the  traditional  range  of   approximately one-third  of  the  total  settlement”);;  Silber  and  Goodrich, Common Funds and Common  Problems:  Fee  Objections  and  Class  Counsel’s  Response, 17 RevLitig 525, 545-46 (1998) (reports results of a 1994 study by National Economic Research Associates that attorneys
25

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 26 of 34

fees in class actions averaged 32% of the recovery, regardless of case size, and averaged 34.74% when the fees and expenses were added together).
The Barham litigation has worked to ensure there would not be a recurrence of the trapand-arrest tactics and other harmful police practices identified in the complaint. Substantial benefits have been conferred upon the class beyond the monetary recovery, in terms of significant policy changes both in the area of restrictions on police tactics as well as implementation of practices addressing document management and indexing procedures to ensure a document audit trail.
Plaintiffs believe that the results secured are exceptional. The proposed attorneys’ fee recovery reflects a compromise of attorneys’ fees incurred during more than seven years of litigation. It is lower than the lodestar would be as calculated under 42 U.S.C. §1988. As the Court is well aware, this has been hard fought, protracted, complex and resource-intensive litigation, as reflected in the size of the docket sheet printout which exceeds one hundred pages. There has been extensive and involved motions practice, including multiple dispositive motion briefings,7 which led to the interlocutory appeals of the denial of qualified immunity by Peter Newsham and Charles Ramsey to the U.S. Court of

7

See Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, filed by Charles Ramsey, et al. (Doc.

No. 67); Motion to Dismiss  Portions  of  the  Complaint,  filed  by  District  of  Columbia  (Doc.  No.  69);;  Plaintiffs’  

Memorandum  in  Opposition  to  Motion  to  Dismiss  Portions  of  Complaint  (Doc.  No.  77);;  Plaintiffs’  Memorandum  in  

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment filed by Chief Ramsey and Mayor

Williams (Doc. No. 76) (including 37 exhibits); Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment

filed  by  Peter  J.  Newsham  (Doc.  No.  89);;  Plaintiffs’  Memorandum  in  Opposition  to  Motion  to  Dismiss  filed by

Newsham (Doc. No. 95); Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Grounds of Qualified Immunity filed by Charles

Ramsey  and  Anthony  Williams  (Doc.  No.  99,  102);;  Plaintiffs’  Memorandum  in  Opposition  to  Motion  to  Dismiss  or  

in the Alternative for Summary Judgment  filed  by  Ramsey  and  Williams  (Doc.  No.  103);;  Plaintiffs’  Supplemental  

Memorandum Regarding Applicability of Groh v. Ramirez to the Motions to Dismiss Based on Qualified Immunity

(Doc.  No.  112);;  Plaintiffs’  Supplemental  Memorandum  Of  Materials  Received That Relate to Qualified Immunity

Defenses  (Doc.  No.  118);;    Plaintiffs’  Supplemental  Memorandum  Regarding  Applicability  of  International Action

Center v. United States, Including Submission of Supplementary Material Related to Qualified Immunity (Doc. No.

126);;  Motion  for  Partial  Summary  Judgment  on  Plaintiffs’  Common  Law  Claims  by  Anthony  Williams  (Doc.  No.  

228);;  Plaintiffs’  Memorandum  in  Opposition  to  the  Motion  for  Partial  Summary  Judgment  filed  by  the  District  of  

Columbia (Doc. No. 257).

26

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 27 of 34

Appeals. See Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C. 2006). The Class Plaintiffs filed two motions for preliminary injunctions, and eventually secured the relief sought in each.8 After extensive litigation the District conceded liability for common law false arrest. Discovery, which has extended over a period of years, has been voluminous,9 protracted, contentious and the subject of many contested motions.10 Ultimately, the loss and destruction of evidence itself became the subject of extensive investigation, motions to compel, briefings, and voluminous motions for sanctions.11

8

Motion for Preliminary Injunction Enjoining the District of Columbia from Arresting or Prosecuting

Persons for Parading without a Permit (Doc. No. 144); Motion for Preliminary Injunction Mandating That the

Defendants Expunge the Arrest Records of Plaintiffs, and grant additional related relief (Doc. No. 145).

9

Over 40,000 documents have been produced. There have been well in excess of 100 hours of radio runs

produced, often multiple versions (not copies) encompassing the same periods of time. Class Counsel estimates it

required an average of 5 hours to closely review one hour of recorded radio communication, due to the poor quality,

the fading in and out of transmissions, the fact that overlapping or sequential transmissions can be initiated by any

source and (unlike a deposition) not sources easily identifiable or even known in advance, etc. There is a substantial

volume of video, as well. The extremely close examination of the radio runs conducted by Barham plaintiffs’  

counsel, which resulted in the identification of critical - - but latent and non-immediately apparent - - deficiencies or

loss of data was exceedingly time consuming. There have, to date, been over 120 depositions in this case. Counsel

has also reviewed the 5,000+ pages of documents released by the D.C. Council upon conclusion of its investigation,

reviewed the additional 11 depositions taken by the Council in executive session, as well as the multiple days of

related public hearings, including those occurring on October 24, 2002, October 24, 2003, December 17 - 18, 2003

and October 7, 2004.

10

Plaintiffs’  Motion  to  Compel  Against  Peter  Newsham  (Doc.  Nos.  248,  249,  251);;  Plaintiffs’  Memorandum  

in Opposition to Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Disqualify the Office of the Attorney

General, filed in Chang case (Doc. No. 258); Motion for Protective Order filed by District of Columbia (Doc. No.

263);;  Plaintiffs’  Motion  to  Compel  Production  of  Properly  Prepared  Rule  30(b)(6)  Deponent  to  Testify  With  the  

Collective Knowledge of  the  District  of  Columbia  Municipality  (Doc.  Nos.  264,  273,  300);;  Plaintiffs’  Motion  to  Lift  

Stay of Discovery (Doc. No. 311); Motion by District of Columbia and Individual Defendants to Propound

Discovery to the Class Members (Doc. No. 326); Motion to Compel the Production of Running Resumes and

Recorded  Police  Channel  Communications  (Doc.  No.  338,  339);;  Plaintiffs’  Opposition  to  District  of  Columbia’s  

Motion for Discovery Against Class Members (Doc. No. 341); Motion for Protective Order by District of Columbia

(Doc.  No.  354),  and  Plaintiffs’  Opposition  thereto  (Doc.  No.  362);;  Plaintiffs’  Motion  to  Compel  Production  of  Field  

Arrest  Forms  and  Related  Arrest  Records  from  the  District  of  Columbia  (Doc.  No.  363);;  Plaintiffs’  Opposition  to  

Motion to Compel filed  by  District  of  Columbia  against  Plaintiffs  (Doc.  No.  380);;  Plaintiffs’  Motion  to  Lift  Stay  of  

Proceedings (Doc. No. 427, 429, 431, 432, 434).

11

Motion to Compel the Production of Running Resumes and Recorded Police Channel Communications

(Doc. No. 338,  339);;  Plaintiffs’  Motion  to  Compel  Production  of  Field  Arrest  Forms  and  Related  Arrest  Records  

from the District of Columbia (Doc. No. 363); Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by the District

of Columbia (Doc. No. 439, 447, 448, 449, 450, 452, 459, 460, 462, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 481, 482); Barham

Plaintiffs’  Response  to  the  Court’s  Request  for  a  Proposal  for  Further  Discovery  in  Light  of  the  Sanctionable  

Conduct  by  the  District  of  Columbia  (Doc.  No.  502);;  Barham  Class’  Response  to  the Representations of Kathy

Patterson as They Pertain to the Loss and Destruction of the J.O.C.C. Running Resume Database (Doc. No. 514);

The  Barham  Class’  Response  to  the  Declaration  of  Attorney  General  Peter  J.  Nickles  (Doc.  No.  515);;  The  Barham  

27

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 28 of 34
Indeed, it was as a consequence of Barham class  counsel’s  painstaking  litigation  that   significant issues involving loss and destruction of evidence were uncovered and revealed. These matters may now be the subject of forensic investigation. Class Counsel remains actively involved in these matters without additional remuneration. As the Court is aware, Class Counsel is committed to the pursuit of these matters, which is in the public interest as well as the plaintiffs’  interests.
In this resolution, Class Counsel has forgone any additional recovery of costs and expenses. Class Counsel has also forgone recovery of additional fees attributed to necessary attorney services during administration of the class claims as well as the period of implementation of the document management system which requires counsels’  ongoing involvement.
The attorneys’ fees are reasonable as a percentage of the recovery, measured strictly in monetary terms. The benefit to the  class  of  counsels’  services  is  far  greater  than  simply  the   monetary relief as is evidenced by the substantial advancement of key constitutional rights issues and matters of public integrity in this litigation and the securing of meaningful and important equitable relief. III. Proposed Notice, Opportunities for Exclusion or Opting Out of Monetary
Components of the Settlement, and Procedures for Notice and Hearing The Settlement Agreement and proposed notice, and opportunity to opt out, appropriately accommodates the due process interests of class members to opt out of the monetary portion of the class settlement.
Class’  Renewed Motion for Sanctions, and Memorandum in Support, Against the District of Columbia and Against Charles H. Ramsey (Doc. No. 520; 522; 524; 534; 538; 539; 540; 544).
28

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 29 of 34
This Court certified the Barham class under Rule 23(b)(2). Barham v. Ramsey, 217 F.R.D. 262, 275. Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate in civil rights lawsuits where equitable/injunctive relief is necessary to redress group injuries or to effect institutional reform through injunctive relief. Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, §21.142; See also Eubanks v. Billington,  110  F.3d  87,  92  (D.C.  Cir.  1997)  (“civil  rights  class  actions  are  frequently  certified   pursuant  to  Rule  23(b)(2).”).
A. Opportunity to Opt Out of Monetary Relief The  Settlement  Agreement  protects  class  members’  due  process  rights  and  affords  the  
opportunity to opt out of the monetary claims or relief. The law distinguishes between relatively limited opt out rights for equitable relief from the constitutionally required opt out rights for monetary relief, which trigger jury entitlement rights.
There is no mandatory right to opt out of the prospective equitable relief that may issue in a Rule 23(b)(2) class action. See Tricor Title Ins. Co. v. Brown, 511 U.S. 117, 121 (1994) (per curiam); See also Bynum v. District of Columbia, 412 F. Supp. 2d 73, 77 (D.D.C. 2006) (Issuing final  approval  of  class  action  settlement,  pursuant  to  Rule  23(b)(2)  “regarding  prospective  relief,   no member of the class may opt-out.”);;  Manual  for  Complex  Litigation,  Fourth,  §21.142 (ordinarily,  “a  Rule  23(b)(2)  class  action  does  not  permit  opting  out”);;  See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(A) (no mandatory requirement that notice must issue to a class certified under Rule 23(b)(2)).
“Although  not  required,  this  Circuit  has  held  that  District  Courts  have  the  discretion  to   grant opt-out  rights  in  class  actions  certified  pursuant  to  Fed.  R.  Civ.  P.  23(b)(1)  or  (2).”  Barham v. Ramsey, 217 F.R.D. 262, 274 (citing Eubanks, 110 F.3d at 94).
29

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 30 of 34
A typical circumstance which may justify recognition of notice and opt-out rights in a Rule 23(b)(2) class action, is where there are present demands for both equitable relief (which are resolved by the Court) and monetary relief (which may be resolved by jury), as is present in the  instant  case.  “[W]here  both  injunctive  and  monetary  relief  are  sought,  the need to protect the rights of individual class members may necessitate procedural protections beyond those ordinarily  provided  under  (b)(1)  and  (b)(2).”  Eubanks, 110 F.3d at 95; See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 advisory  committee’s  note  (2003  amendments).
Consistent  with  this  framework,  the  settlement  agreement  provides  that  “[n]o opt outs for the  equitable  relief  are  allowed.”  See, e.g., Bynum, 412 F. Supp. 2d at 77 (Judge Lamberth approved class action settlement against District of Columbia, allowing opt-outs for monetary relief  and  that  “regarding  prospective  relief,  no  member  of  the  class  may  opt-out.”).
With respect to monetary claims, however, the Settlement Agreement accords the full provision of notice, equivalent to that which would be required were monetary claims certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
B. Notice The substance of the notice satisfies all requirements for notice to a Rule 23(b)(3) class, which are the strictest and the fullest notice requirements of any class type. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2). See Exhibit 2 (Class Notice). Class Counsel has undertaken significant efforts to evaluate and determine the most effective and comprehensive manner of notice. The class is geographically diverse. Law enforcement arrest records created during the processing of hundreds of simultaneous arrests, are in many instances inaccurate and incomplete. The records, where they do exist, reflect addresses that are at least seven years old. For some arrestee names, there is also social security or date of
30

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 31 of 34
birth information, which can be used to update arrest information through public records searches. Many arrestees are believed to be associated by topical and political and organizational interests. Others may be regionally located.
Rather than rely only  on  the  MPD’s  Criminal  Justice  Information  System  (CJIS)  records,   Class Counsel is aggregating all sources of identity information produced in discovery, to include any arrest information produced by federal law enforcement, handwritten lists created during arrest processing (i.e., transport logs or lists of persons released by posting a bond, etc.). These multiple sources of information are to be produced to the Class Administrator, which is required to process each, either using optical character recognition software or hiring persons to review and do manual data entry of all relevant fields of information into a central database. Having aggregated the data, it will be de-duplicated and organized such that identity and contact information is accessible.
The Class Administrator will send a mailed notice and proof of claim form to all class members who can be identified through reasonable effort, including by first class mail to the last known address of each class member. The United States Postal Service address forwarding database and other public records sources will be used in efforts to update addresses.
Multiple additional means will be used to reach class members by publication. Abbreviated forms of notice will be printed in the Washington Post and the Washington City Paper. Each has a regional circulation and has also run articles pertaining to the protest, court proceedings or settlement which may cause interested persons to review them. The class members are geographically diverse. Some, however, are connected by political interests that drew them to the underlying protest activity. Notice will also be published in no
31

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 32 of 34
less than three periodicals/media outlets believed to be of topical interest to persons or organizations associated with the protests.
Class counsel will also seek to have the notice announced on the web sites or e-mail lists of political or protest organizations whose constituency is believed to be among those participating at the protest.
A stand-alone web site dedicated to class administration will be set up. The notice will also be published/linked on the web sites of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund and on the front  page  of  the  Metropolitan  Police  Department’s  web  site  and  the  District  of  Columbia  Office   of  the  Attorney  General’s web site. These are sites that potential class members may visit seeking information.
The Class Administrator will also establish a toll free telephone line for inquiries from potential class members. Whether class members learn of the settlement through the newspaper, the internet, or word of mouth, they will be able to pick up the phone and speak to a person if they still have any questions. This is the best notice possible under the circumstances. The arrest records, where accurate and complete, are the best source for determining the identity of class members. The published notice is designed to reach class members through region-based publication and topically based publication.
The time period for responding to the notice (Ex. 2) and submitting a Proof of Claim form (Ex. 3) will be no less than 76 days from the date notice is initially mailed. This is of reasonable and sufficient duration. See, e.g., Bynum v. District of Columbia, 384 F. Supp. 2d 342, 343 (D.D.C. 2005) (allowing 63 day period for class member responses); Burgin v. District of Columbia, Civil Action 03-02005 (EGS) (Docket No. 60) (71 days for response).
The timeline we anticipate is that initial notices will issue on or by April 30, 2010.
32

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 33 of 34

There shall be an approximately ninety (75) day period in which Class Members will be required to submit a Proof of Claim Form.
The deadline to submit a claim, to request exclusion from the class, to file written objections, and to file a Notice of Intent to be heard at the Fairness hearing will, for each, be July 15, 2010 (requests/filings required to be received or postmarked by this date).
The Class Administrator will complete his report, and will prepare filings in advance of the final approval / fairness hearing, with a due date of August 1, 2010.
The deadline for the parties to file responses to any objections will be September 1, 2010. The parties jointly propose that the fairness hearing on September 15, 2010 or at a similar date of the Court’s  selection. The parties have jointly agreed upon, and propose, the firm of Gilardi & Co., L.L.C. to serve as Class Administrator. They are an eminently qualified and experienced class administration firm. Their expertise and experience is described in the Gilardi & Co. firm materials, attached as Exhibit 6. IV. Conclusion After seven years of litigation, and after multiple failed attempts at settlement/mediation over the years,12 the parties have come to terms. This  settlement,  in  Class  Counsels’  view,  occurred  only  through  the  accumulated   incremental litigation victories and the advancement of key issues during the years of litigation including  that  of  the  past  year,  as  well  as  this  Court’s  involved  and  engaged  oversight.

12

Settlement communications failed in 2004. The case was stayed from October 5, 2006 to allow for three

months of mediation with George Cohen and Richard Hotvedt, appointed through the Mediation Program through

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (Docket No. 294). Despite rigorous efforts, those

failed. The case was stayed on February 1, 2008, to allow private mediation before the Honorable Richard A. Levie.

Mediation not only failed, but led to substantial motions practice regarding the allocation of mediation fees. (Docket

Nos. 410, 411, 412, 414, 415, 417, 418, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426). Settlement negotiations have, clearly, been at

arms-length.

33

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-1 Filed 03/05/10 Page 34 of 34

The terms that have been reached are, indeed, historic. They are substantial for plaintiffs and are a fair deal for the District.
For the reasons stated above, this Court should preliminarily approve the settlement, schedule a hearing for final approval, and approve the proposed form and manner of notice.

Respectfully submitted,

PETER J. NICKLES Attorney General for the District of Columbia
GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division
ELLEN A. EFROS [250746] Assistant Deputy Litigation Division
MONIQUE A. PRESSLEY [464432] Senior Assistant Attorney General Equity Section I 441 4th Street, NW, 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-6610 Fax: (202) 741-0424 monique.pressley@dc.gov
SHANA L. FROST [458021] Assistant Attorney General
/s/ Chad Copeland_____________________ CHAD COPELAND [982119] Assistant Attorney General Equity Section I
Attorneys for Defendants
DATED: March 5, 2010

/s/ Carl Messineo, [450033] Mara Verheyden-Hilliard [450031] Radhika Miller [984306] PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 617 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 232-1180 (202) 747-7747 fax Attorneys for Plaintiffs

34

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-4 Filed 03/05/10 Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Notice of Class Action, Proposed Class Settlement and Hearing
Barham, et al., v. Ramsey, et al., Case No. 02- CV-02283 (EGS)(JMF)
If you were arrested in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002 in Washington, D.C. in connection with the IMF / World Bank related demonstrations, you
could receive up to $18,000 from a class action settlement.
x A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit about the illegality of the arrests of approximately 400 protesters and others in Pershing Park on Friday, September 27, 2002 in Washington, D.C. Many of those arrested were surrounded by police in the park, moved onto mass arrest busses, were in custody including overnight, and were restrained wrist-to-ankle with plastic “flexcuffs.”
x The class is “all persons who were arrested in Pershing Park in the District of Columbia on September 27, 2002.” There were protest-related arrests elsewhere on September 27, 2002 that are the subject of other suits. This settlement pertains only to the Pershing Park arrests.
x The proposed settlement will provide up to $18,000 per class member in compensation. Attorneys fees will be paid separately and will not be deducted from this amount. In addition, the arrests of class members will be expunged and declared legally null and void. The class has demanded and the D.C. Government has agreed to and has imposed, substantial equitable relief and/or restrictions on police conduct to prevent recurrence.
x Your legal rights are affected whether you act, or don’t act. Strict deadlines will apply.

Your Legal Rights and Options in this Settlement:

Submit a Claim Form

The only way to get a payment. Deadline: July 15, 2010

Exclude yourself

Get no payment. This is the only option that allows you to ever be part of any other lawsuit about the legal claims in this case. Deadline: July 15, 2010

Object

Write to the Court about why you don’t like the settlement. Deadline: July 15, 2010

Go to a Hearing

Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement. Hearing Date: September 15, 2010

Do Nothing

Get no payment. Give up rights.

Class Counsel has been the attorneys of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund.

ǫͳǦͺ͹͹Ǧ͸͹ͺǦͲ͹͵͸ǡǤǤͳ

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-4 Filed 03/05/10 Page 2 of 12
CONTENTS
BASIC INFORMATION ……………………………………………………………………………………….3 1. Why did I get this notice package? ……………………………………………………………………….3 2. What is this class action lawsuit about? …………………………………………………………………..3 3. Does the class action involve persons who were arrested that day, including in protest-related arrests or mass arrests, at locations other that Pershing Park? ……………………………………………………...3 4. What is the status of the lawsuit? ………………………………………..……………………………….4 5. Why is this a class action? ……………………………………………………………………………......4
WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT …………………………………………………………………………......5 6. How do I know if I am part of the settlement? …………………………………………………………...5 7. Are there exceptions to being included? ………………………………………………………………….5 8. Is everyone who was arrested in connection with the Fall, 2002 protests in Washington, D.C. a Class Member? ………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 9. I’m still not sure if I am included ..………………….…………………………………………………….5
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS – WHAT YOU GET .……………………………………………………..5 10. What does the settlement provide in terms of money? …………………………………………………...5 11. How much will my payment be? ……………………………………………………………………........5 12. What does the settlement provide in terms of my arrest record? If I participate in the settlement, will the arrest be voided or nullified? ……………………………………………………………………………..6 13. If I participate in the settlement, will any existing arrest records be sealed or expunged? ………………6 14. What steps have been taken or will be required to be taken by the Settlement Agreement to prevent a recurrence or future unlawful mass arrest? ……………………………………………………………….6 15. What steps have been taken or will be required to be taken by the Settlement Agreement to prevent a recurrence of the loss or destruction of evidence that became an issue in the Barham Class Action?........8
HOW TO GET A PAYMENT – SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM ………………………………………...9 16. How can I get a payment? ………………………………………………………………………………..9 17. How is it determined that I am an eligible class member? ……………………………………………….9 18. When would I get my payment? ………………………………………………………………………….9 19. What am I giving up to get a payment or stay in the Class? …………………………………………….10 20. How do I exclude myself from the settlement? ………….……………………………………………...10 21. If I don’t exclude myself, can I later sue the MPD or other defendants for the same mass arrest? .……10
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU …………………………………………………………………..10 22. Do I have a lawyer in this case? …………………………………………………………………………10 23. How will the lawyers be paid? …………………………………………………………………………..11
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT ……………………………………………………………………..11 24. How do I tell the Court that I object to the settlement? …………………………………………...…….11 25. What is the difference between objecting and excluding? ………………………………………………11
THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING ……………………………………………………………………..11 26. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement? ……………………………11 27. Do I have to come to the hearing? ………………………………………………………………………11 28. May I speak at the hearing? ……………………………………………………………………………..12
IF YOU DO NOTHING ……………………………………………………………………………………….12 29. What happens if I do nothing at all? …………………………………………………………………….12
GETTING MORE INFORMATION …………………………………………………………………………12 30. Are there more details about the settlement? ……………………………………………………………12 31. How do I get more information? ………………………………………………………………………...12
ǫͳǦͺ͹͹Ǧ͸͹ͺǦͲ͹͵͸ǡǤǤʹ

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-4 Filed 03/05/10 Page 3 of 12
BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why did I get this notice package? You may be identified in law enforcement or government records as having been subject to the mass arrest that is the focus of this class action settlement.
The Court has directed that you be sent this notice because you have a right to know about a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit, and about all of your options, before the Court decides whether to approve the settlement. If the Court approves it and after objections and appeals are resolved, if any arise at all, an administrator will make the payments that the settlement allows.
This package explains the lawsuit, the settlement, your legal rights, what benefits are available, who is eligible for them, and how to get them.
The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the case is known as Barham, et al. v. Ramsey, et al., Case No. 02-CV-002283. The people who have sued are called the Plaintiffs and the persons and entities that have been sued are called the Defendants.
2. What is this class action lawsuit about? The lawsuit asserts that the District of Columbia, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, former Chief of Police Charles H. Ramsey and former Assistance Chief of Police Peter J. Newsham and federal agents engaged in the false arrest of a class of individuals in Pershing Park on the morning of Friday, September 27, 2002.
On the morning of September 27, 2002 there were well publicized protests at multiple locations in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the Fall meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
Hundreds of persons, including protestors, tourists, legal observers, bystanders, journalists and others congregated or were present within Pershing Park. By all accounts, the conduct in the park was peaceful. People were “milling about” the park, many carried protest signs or symbols and some persons beat on drums.
Some number of persons entered the park on, or with, their bicycle. A bicycle protest, which had initiated at the Union Station train station, terminated at Pershing Park and many bike protesters entered the park.
No warnings or orders to disperse were issued to the persons who had assembled, or who were physically present, within the park. Law enforcement used police lines to surround the park and denied persons the ability to leave. The MPD brought mass arrest busses to the park. From the southeast corner of the park, near a set of steps leading down from the park to the sidewalk, police loaded persons onto the busses and transported them away.
The Class claims assert that the mass arrest in Pershing Park on September 27, 2002 violated the Constitution of the United States, including the First and Fourth Amendment rights of those arrested. It is also asserted that the arrest violated Class Members’ rights under District of Columbia law to be free of false arrest and that the arrest constituted false imprisonment under District of Columbia law.
Money damages, equitable relief (or rule/policy reform) including expungement of arrest records, and attorneys fees and costs have been sought against these defendants on behalf of the class.
3. Does the class action involve persons who were arrested that day, including in protest-related arrests or
mass arrests, at locations other than Pershing Park?
No.
The Barham class action only involves those arrested at Pershing Park.
Different lawsuits, including class action claims, have been advanced on behalf of persons arrested in other specific locations. A different and separate class action has been advanced on behalf of an estimated 150
ǫͳǦͺ͹͹Ǧ͸͹ͺǦͲ͹͵͸ǡǤǤ͵

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-4 Filed 03/05/10 Page 4 of 12
persons who were arrested earlier on September 27, 2002 at a location on or near the northwest corner of Vermont Avenue and K Street, N.W. (near a Citibank) and also for a group of approximately 40 persons arrested on or near the eastern sidewalk of Connecticut Avenue between K and L Streets, N.W.
Pershing Park is located in downtown Washington, D.C. along Pennsylvania Avenue and between 14th and 15th Streets, N.W. Two blocks to the west of Pershing Park is the White House Complex. Immediately to the east of Pershing Park is Freedom Plaza, an entire city block dedicated to function as an assembly and event area.
4. What is the status of the lawsuit? An initial complaint in this matter was filed on November 19, 2002. On September 19, 2003, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet J. Sullivan certified the class for declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief.
On September 24, 2004, Judge Sullivan denied defense motions to dismiss and ruled that the class claims against Chief Charles H. Ramsey and Assistant Chief Peter J. Newsham personally and in their individual capacities could proceed. See Barham v. Ramsey, 338 F. Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). Those defendants appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On January 13, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Chief Ramsey and Assistant Chief Newsham’s appeals seeking reversal. See Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Throughout the case, there has been ongoing and extensive litigation including scores of depositions and discovery and motions. The plaintiffs have taken over 100 depositions of defense witnesses in this case, some number of which extended over multiple days.
Claims against the federal government remain pending.
The plantiffs and the District of Columbia defendants have engaged in settlement discussions which have resulted in the proposed Settlement Agreement that is the subject of this notice.
5. Why is this a class action? In a class action, one or more people called Class Representatives sue on behalf of people who have similar claims. In this case, seventeen individuals representing a broad cross section of persons who were arrested, have served as Class Representatives.
The class representatives include: protestors who entered the park on foot; protestors who were a part of the Union Station bicycle protest to draw attention to the effectiveness of non-fossil fuel based means of transport; nurses who were attending a professional conference in Washington, D.C. and staying at a hotel that abutted Pershing Park, and who entered the park to see if there was a speaker to listen to; National Lawyers Guild legal observers; a photo-journalist; and others who, on their way to work, entered Pershing Park and were not allowed to exit.
They have been active participants in the litigation, on behalf of the class as a whole and have been subjected to discovery, depositions and other requirements of the lawsuit that has been active since 2002. All other class members may share in the relief and recovery, if any, from the litigation without being active participants in the ongoing proceedings and litigation.
In a class action, one court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who voluntarily exclude themselves or “opt out” from the Class.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is in charge of this class action.
ǫͳǦͺ͹͹Ǧ͸͹ͺǦͲ͹͵͸ǡǤǤͶ

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-4 Filed 03/05/10 Page 5 of 12
WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT? To see if you will get money from this settlement, you first have to decide if you are a Class Member.
6. How do I know if I am part of the settlement? Judge Sullivan decided that everyone who fits the following definition of the Class is a Class Member: All individuals who were arrested in Pershing Park in the District of Columbia on September 27, 2002.
7. Are there exceptions to being included? If you fit the description, above, you are a Class Member.
8. Is everyone who was arrested in connection with the Fall, 2002 protests in Washington, D.C. a Class
Member?
No. Only if you fit the description, above, are you a Class Member.
Persons who were arrested, including on September 27, 2002, at locations other than in Pershing Park are not Class Members.
There were approximately forty people who were arrested on Connecticut Avenue between K and L Streets, and approximately 150 persons arrested in the vicinity of Vermont Ave and K Street, N.W. The class definition does not include these arrests.
9. I’m still not sure if I am included. If you are still not sure whether you are included, you can ask for free help. You can call 1-877-678-0736 or visit www.PershingParkSettlement.com for more information.
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS – WHAT YOU GET
10. What does the settlement provide in terms of money? The District of Columbia has agreed to create a $4,788,000 fund to be distributed among all Class Members who send in a valid Proof of Claim, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
11. How much will my payment be? If it is determined that you are a Class Member, and you file a claim within the time set by the Court, you will be entitled to compensation from the Claimants Funds.
Your share of the fund will depend on the number of valid claim forms that Class Members send in, and is also subject to a maximum payment of $18,000 per Class Member. Here’s how it works:
The fund has been set up within a framework that assumes a 75% participation rate of Class Members.
Should the participation rate be equal or lower than 75% of the eligible claimants (i.e., 266 or fewer participating Claimants), each eligible Claimant shall be allocated and awarded a pro-rata share of the Claimants’ Funds, subject to a maximum of $18,000. Under nearly all such circumstances, this will result in a payment to each eligible Claimant of $18,000.
Should the participation rate be higher than 75% of the eligible claimants (i.e., more than 266 participating Claimants), each eligible Claimant shall be allocated and awarded a pro-rata share of the Claimants’ Funds. This will result in a payment to each of some measure less than $18,000.
In terms of monetary relief, the total class-wide monetary settlement is a maximum of $8,251,333. In addition to monies allocated for Claimants’ Funds, the settlement also provides for: $2,463,333 for Attorneys Fees and Costs Funds; $850,000 to be divided equally between the 17 Class Representatives who will receive more in the Settlement than other Class Members because of the role that they played in the litigation; and $150,000 for
ǫͳǦͺ͹͹Ǧ͸͹ͺǦͲ͹͵͸ǡǤǤͷ

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-4 Filed 03/05/10 Page 6 of 12
Notification and Administration Funds to be used by the Class Administrator to provide notification and distribution of funds to Class Members.
In addition to the monetary amount of $8,251,333 that is referred to as the class-wide monetary settlement, the settlement agreement also allocates additional funds to be paid by the District of Columbia government to fund certain equitable relief demanded by plaintiffs and agreed to by the District, described further below.
12. What does the settlement provide in terms of my arrest record? If I participate in the settlement, will the
arrest be voided or nullified?
Each person who participates in the Settlement Agreement will receive a Court Order that declares his or her arrest to be “null and void” by order of the United States District Court of the District of Columbia. The Order authorizes each participant to deny the occurrence of his or her arrest that day without penalty under D.C. law.
13. If I participate in the settlement, will any existing arrest records be sealed or expunged? Yes. For each Class Member who participates in the Settlement Agreement, the District of Columbia will request the expungement of each’s September 27, 2002 arrest records in the possession of the District of Columbia government or courts and in the possession of the United States Government, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security.
14. What steps have been taken or will be required to be taken by the Settlement Agreement to prevent a
recurrence or future unlawful mass arrest?
The attorneys at the Partnership for Civil Justice, the Class Counsel in this case, have undertaken efforts in the Barham class action and other cases, as well as before the Council of the District of Columbia, to secure meaningful equitable relief to prevent a recurrence or future unlawful mass arrest.
During the course of this litigation as a consequence of the events of the Pershing Park mass arrest and complaints regarding other police conduct in the context of mass demonstrations, the Council of the District of Columbia undertook an extensive investigation and enacted new District of Columbia laws that impose restrictions on the Metropolitan Police Department in the context of mass demonstrations.
The First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004:
x Establishes restrictions on the use of police lines to surround First Amendment protected assemblies;
x Prohibits wrist-to-ankle restraints or flexcuffs in the context of certain mass demonstration arrests;
x Affirms that it is not an offense for persons for demonstrate or parade on the sidewalks, the roadways or other public ways without a permit;
x Requires police to provide an accurate written statement of options for release from police custody in the event of protest-related arrests;
x Requires the prompt processing of persons arrested in connection with a First Amendment assembly and, further, requires a supervisory rank officer to “document and explain” any instance where a protestrelated arrestee eligible for and requesting release is not released within 4 hours from the time of arrest;
x Establishes that the policy of the District of Columbia is to avoid issuing general orders to disperse First Amendment activities;
x Requires, in the limited circumstances where dispersal of a protest may be authorized under law, that the MPD shall issue one or more audible orders to those assembled using an amplification system or device, and shall provide persons with an adequate time to disperse and with a clear and safe route for dispersal;
ǫͳǦͺ͹͹Ǧ͸͹ͺǦͲ͹͵͸ǡǤǤ͸

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-4 Filed 03/05/10 Page 7 of 12
x Prohibits the deployment of officers in riot gear to First Amendment assemblies, except in limited circumstances where there is a danger of violence and, further, requires the commander at the scene to issue a written report to the Chief which is to be made available to the public following any deployment of officers in riot gear;
x Requires officers assigned to First Amendment be equipped with easily visible or “enhanced” badge or name identification that remains visible and allows identification even if officers are wearing riot gear;
x Requires that the MPD promulgate regulations that pertain to the particularized First Amendment interests of reporters and media when present at a First Amendment protected assembly, including mandating that media not be denied the access that is available to members of the general public and be granted additional physical access to areas closed to the general public in order to assist their ability to report on the event. See also 24 D.C.M.R. §2104 (regulations, as promulgated, which among other things establish the policy of the MPD is “that media representatives shall have maximum access to First Amendment assemblies. . . consistent with maintaining public safety. . .”).
In addition, in the context of the Barham litigation, the District of Columbia entered into a written agreement requiring that the Metropolitan Police Department’s Mass Demonstration Handbook shall be amended to state and provide written notice to officers that:
x Parading without a permit, demonstrating without a permit, and participating in a First Amendment Assembly without a permit are not arrestable offenses;
x New restrictions relating to the use of police lines have been imposed by the First Amendment and Police Standards Act of 2004, including specific reference to the substance of those restrictions. Additionally, the agreement requires such notice also be including in the standard 40 hour course given to new officers pertaining to “civil disturbance unit (CDU) training” and including in the standard 8 hour refresher course required of all officers with CDU responsibilities.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund is class counsel also in the matter of Becker v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 01-00811, which relates to the arrest of nearly 700 persons in connection with the April, 2000 International Monetary Fund / World Bank meetings. An agreement has been recently reached in that class action, which if approved will mandate that:
x Every MPD officer be required to take training on lawful standard operating procedures in the context of First Amendment protected assemblies and mass demonstrations;
x Every police officer assigned to mass demonstration related responsibilities be directed to the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004;
x The MPD make available to all persons inquiring regarding demonstration permits or related activities a copy of the their rights under the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004, the rules implementing that statute, and any forms pertaining to demonstration activities; and
x When the MPD obtains the assistance of outside law enforcement agencies for demonstration related duties, that the MPD brief outside agency commanders of the District of Columbia law and standard operating procedures for protest activity and assign an MPD officer to each such outside agency.
Although not strictly “equitable relief,” Class Counsel believes that the magnitude of the financial settlements in the Barham and Becker mass arrest class action cases will also effect a substantial deterrent effect to prevent recurrence. The two settlements, as proposed and submitted for approval, collectively impose 22 million dollars
ǫͳǦͺ͹͹Ǧ͸͹ͺǦͲ͹͵͸ǡǤǤ͹

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-4 Filed 03/05/10 Page 8 of 12
in potential monetary payments on the District, a figure which does not include the District’s own costs for defending the class action claims or for implementing the document management and indexing system that is required by the Barham settlement (as referenced immediately, below).
15. What steps have been taken or will be required to be taken by the Settlement Agreement to prevent a
recurrence of the loss or destruction of evidence that became an issue in the Barham class action?
Additional requirements in the Barham settlement agreement are intended to prevent recurrence of loss or destruction of evidence in protest lawsuits, which was identified and documented by Class Counsel at the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund and which became the focus of multiple filings, requests for sanctions and court hearings.
The District has agreed, as a term and condition of the settlement of the Barham class action, if approved by the Court, to:
x Implement a document management system for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests, encompassing the D.C. Office of the Attorney General and the MPD Office of General Counsel, that provides for the indexing and logging of any documents, things, recordings or materials related to protest-related complaint;
x Require the MPD to issue general orders or policy statements to affirmatively direct that, upon notice of likely litigation, and/or request to preserve documents and records pertaining to alleged police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests, the MPD shall preserve and protect from destruction for a period of no less than three (3) years all documents, records, items, videos or computer files relating to the underlying incident;
x Require that whenever a system is activated to assist in the response to mass demonstrations or protests, all computer files, police communications recordings and documents reasonably related to the event be indexed and preserved for no less than three (3) years;
x Require that whenever any MPD officer is assigned to (or with the capability to) engage in photographic or video recording of mass demonstration activities or protests that documentation shall be maintained reflecting the officer’s name, assignment, the equipment and recording media issued, and indexing and logging the return of all media;
x Provide any additional funds needed to pay the costs of the development and operation of the abovereferenced document management system for a period of three years, and may be potentially extended up to five years.
In addition, the District has agreed to issue a report every six months for a period of three (3) years to Class Counsel at the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund as to the measures taken to implement the equitable relief set out in the Barham class action settlement. Class Counsel will be provided an advance copy of the report and afforded an opportunity to comment. Each report will be transmitted to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, will be published and be public, and the comments or response of Class Counsel shall be published as an exhibit or attachment to each public report.
The United States District Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the requirements of the Document Management and Retention Requirements for a period of three year duration.
ǫͳǦͺ͹͹Ǧ͸͹ͺǦͲ͹͵͸ǡǤǤͺ

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-4 Filed 03/05/10 Page 9 of 12
HOW TO GET A PAYMENT – SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM
16. How can I get a payment? To qualify for payment you must submit a claim form. A Proof of Claim form is attached to this Notice. You may also get a claim form on the internet at www.PershingParkSettlement.com. Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form, include all the documents the form asks for, sign it, and mail it postmarked no later than July 15, 2010.
All claim forms must be completed and postmarked or received no later than July 15, 2010, but it is recommended that you complete and mail your Proof of Claim Form as soon as possible. If you do not timely and properly submit your Proof of Claim Form, you will not receive any money from the settlement.
17. How is it determined that I am an eligible class member? Only persons who timely and properly submit a Proof of Claim Form will be considered.
The Class Administrator shall be the determinator of the class eligibility of Claimants, consistent with the class definition approved by the Court and the application of certain guidelines.
Claimants whose identity and arrest can be confirmed by reference to law enforcement or government records or documents will be deemed eligible.
The Class Administrator will be provided with law enforcement records, including arrest records, to facilitate this determination.
It is optional, and not necessary, for you to submit arrest-related documents with your Proof of Claim form. The Class Administrator will first try to confirm your eligibility by matching your name against police arrest records. If your name cannot be matched through police arrest records, the administrator will send you a letter and request additional information, including that you provide copies of any arrest related documents or things.
If you so choose, you can facilitate this by submitting with your Proof of Claim form copies (not originals) of any police or court records that show you were arrested (or released, or scheduled to appear in court, etc.). Materials submitted by Claimants need not strictly be denominated as an “arrest record” in order to evidence class qualification. For example, any of the following would be acceptable if they evidence identity and class membership: Citation Release forms, a Notice to Appear at a Court Hearing, a property receipt or bag, a “post and forfeit” form or record.
If you have misplaced or do not have records of your arrest / release, or the records are located somewhere inconvenient or time-consuming to retrieve, you should continue to search for your records, but do not delay sending in your Proof of Claim.
Additional procedures will be available for the Class Administrator to determine class eligibility in the absence of confirmation through law enforcement records.
18. When would I get my payment? The Court will hold a hearing on September 15, 2010 to decide whether to approve the settlement. If Judge Sullivan approves the settlement after that, there may be appeals.
If the Court approves the settlement at that hearing, and there are no objections or appeals that delay proceeding, we anticipate that each eligible Claimant will receive his or her award in the course of two payments. We anticipate that the first payment will issued towards the end of 2010 and will be no less than 60% of your total award. The second payment will be issued within the calendar year of 2011.
Everyone who sends in an eligible claim form will be informed of the progress of the settlement.
ǫͳǦͺ͹͹Ǧ͸͹ͺǦͲ͹͵͸ǡǤǤͻ

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-4 Filed 03/05/10 Page 10 of 12
We strongly recommend that you keep a copy of your Claim Form. You may want to send the form in by certified mail, return receipt requested, so its receipt can be verified, but you are not required to do so.
19. What am I giving up to get a payment or stay in the Class? Unless you exclude yourself, you are staying in the class, and that means that you can’t sue, continue to sue, or be part of any lawsuit against the defendants about the legal issues in this case. It also means that all of the Court’s orders will apply to you and legally bind you.
By effect of the proposed Settlement Agreement with the District of Columbia, in exchange for your receipt of money and other relief, you will release the District of Columbia and its MPD officers from any further claims.
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT If you don’t want a payment from this settlement, but you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue on your own and with your own attorney about the legal issues in this case, then you must take steps to get out. This is called excluding yourself or “opting out” of the class. The Court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion.
20. How do I exclude myself from the settlement? To exclude yourself from the settlement, you must send a letter by mailing stating that you want to be excluded from Barham, et al. v. Ramsey, et al. Be sure to include your name, current address, current telephone number, your address at the time of the arrest (to facilitate locating you in law enforcement records) and your signature. You must mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than July 15, 2010 to:
Barham Class Exclusions c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 8090 San Rafael, CA 949123-8090 If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any settlement payment and you cannot object to the settlement. You will not be legally bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit. You may be able to sue or continue to sue defendants in the future for claims related to the underlying arrest.
21. If I don’t exclude myself, can I later sue the MPD or other defendants for the same mass arrest? No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up any rights to sue the defendants for the claims that this settlement resolves. If you have a pending lawsuit, speak to your lawyer in that case immediately. You must exclude yourself from this Class to continue your own lawsuit. Remember, the exclusion deadline is July 15, 2010.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
22. Do I have a lawyer in this case? The Court has certified the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, including attorneys Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard to represent the Class. These lawyers are called Class Counsel.
You will not be charged for these lawyers. You will not be asked to pay your own personal money for the services of these attorneys and their associates and staff in litigating this case and negotiating this settlement.
Only Class Counsel may act on behalf of the class. However, that does not prevent you from hiring your own lawyer to advise you personally about your rights, options or obligations as a Class Member in this lawsuit. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.
ǫͳǦͺ͹͹Ǧ͸͹ͺǦͲ͹͵͸ǡǤǤͳͲ

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-4 Filed 03/05/10 Page 11 of 12

23. How will the lawyers be paid?
The parties will ask the Court to approve payment to Class Counsel of $2,463,333 for the legal services and costs associated with bringing the class action. The fees would pay Class Counsel for all services rendered, as well as all costs incurred, from investigating the facts, litigating the case over the course of 7+ years, the conduct of scores of depositions, extensive briefing, defending against the appeal of Chief Ramsey and Assistant Chief Newsham, negotiating the settlement, and services to be performed to facilitate the administration and distribution of funds (which will be handled primarily by the Class Administrator).

The amount of attorneys fees and costs will not come out of your compensation of up to $18,000, nor will it reduce the funds available for the Class Members.

The amount of attorneys fees and costs are set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and constitute a payment fund distinct from Claimants’ Funds.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
24. How do I tell the Court that I object to the settlement? If you are a Class Member, you can object to the settlement agreement if you don’t like any part of it. You can submit for the Court’s consideration reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. To object, you must send a letter stating that you object to the proposed settlement agreement in Barham, et al. v. Ramsey, et al. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, your signature, and the reasons why you object to the settlement.
The attorneys for the Class and for the defendants will be allowed to file with the Court a written response to any submitted objections.

If you wish to assert any objections, you are required to submit those to three different places postmarked by no later than July 15, 2010:

To the Court
Clerk’s Office United States District Court
for the District of Columbia 333 Constitution Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

To Class Counsel
Carl Messineo Barham Class Counsel Partnership for Civil Justice 617 Florida Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

To Defense Counsel
Monique Pressley Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General for
the District of Columbia 441 4th Street, N.W. 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001

25. What is the difference between objecting and excluding? Objecting is simply telling the Court that you don’t like something about the settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you don’t want to be a part of the Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you.
THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. You may attend, and you may ask to speak, but you don’t have to.
26. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement? The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 15, 2010, Courtroom 24A at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20001. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. If there are any objections, the Court will consider them. Judge Sullivan will also listen to any Class Members who ask to speak at the hearing. At or after the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the settlement.
ǫͳǦͺ͹͹Ǧ͸͹ͺǦͲ͹͵͸ǡǤǤͳͳ

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-4 Filed 03/05/10 Page 12 of 12 27. Do I have to come to the hearing? No. Class Counsel will respond to any questions that Judge Sullivan may have. But, you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an objection, you don’t have to come to the Court to talk about it. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary. 28. May I speak at the hearing? You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. To do so, you must send a letter stating that it is your “Notice of Intent to Appear at Fairness Hearing in Barham, et al. v. Ramsey, et al.” Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number and your signature. The Notice of Intent to Appear must be postmarked no later than July 15, 2010, and be sent to the Clerk of the Court, Class Counsel and Defense Counsel at the three addresses set forth in question 24, above. You cannot speak at the hearing if you have excluded yourself or opted out of the Class.
IF YOU DO NOTHING 29. What happens if I do nothing at all? If you do nothing, your rights will be affected. You will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and you will be agreeing to a release of the claims that are contained in the Settlement Agreement. However, because you did not file a claim, you will not be entitled to any money from the settlement.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION 30. Are there more details about the settlement? This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. More details are in the Settlement Agreement. You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement by writing to Barham, et al. v. Ramsey, et al. Settlement, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-8060, or by visiting www.PershingParkSettlement.com. 31. How do I get more information? You can call 1-877-678-0736 toll free; write to Barham, et al. v. Ramsey, et al Settlement, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-8060; or visit www.PershingParkSettlement.com, where you will find answers to common questions about the settlement, a Proof of Claim Form, plus other information to help you determine whether you are a Class Member and eligible to receive money and participate in the Class Settlement Agreement.
ǫͳǦͺ͹͹Ǧ͸͹ͺǦͲ͹͵͸ǡǤǤͳʹ

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

JEFFREY BARHAM,

)

et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY,

)

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

-----------------------)

Civ. Action No. 02-CV-02283 (EGS)(JMF)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANTS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FORMER CHIEF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ASSISTANT CHIEF PETER J. NEWSHAM AND THE
THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS

Class representatives Mary Canales, William Durham, Noah Falk, Jorge Garcia-Spitz, Mark Allan Jackson, Casey Legler, Charlcie Legler, Sally A. Norton, John Passacantando, Joseph Phelan, Nicole Prichard, Morgan Ress, MacDonald Scott, Jeri Wohlberg, Lesley Wood, Samantha Young and Stephen Zimmennan have sued defendants District of Columbia, Charles H. Ramsey and Peter J. Newsham (collectively the "Defendants"), in this matter, Barham. et al. v. Ramsey, et aI., 02-CV-02283 (EGS)(JMF), asserting claims of constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, common law tort and personal injury claims, and seeking damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys fees and costs.
In reliance upon the representations contained herein, and in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and obligations in this Agreement, and for good and valuable consideration, plaintiffs and defendants, through their undersigned counsel, agree and stipulate as follows:
I. Defmitions and General Provisions A. Defmitions

1
Oat" initials, on behalfof District Defendants
C2ti on behalf of plaintiffs

c./ .

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 2 of 24
1. "Class" - All individuals who were arrested in Pershing Park in the District of Columbia on September 27,2002. The class was certified by Judge Emmet O. Sullivan on September 24, 2003 (Dkt. No. 56). 2. "Class Administrator" or "Administrator" - A firm to be chosen by agreement of the Class Representatives on behalf of the Class and the District defendants, or appointment of the court if they cannot agree, to administer the claims process. Any firm so chosen must specialize in such work. The parties have jointly agreed upon the firm of Gilardi & Co., L.L.C. to serve as Class Administrator. 3. "Class Counsel" or "Plaintiffs' Counsel" - The counsel ofrecord for the Plaintiffs and the Class. They are the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard. 4. "Class Members" - All persons within or encompassed by the definition of the Class. 5. "Class Representatives" - Mary Canales, William Durham, Noah Falk, Jorge GarciaSpitz, Mark Allan Jackson, Casey Legler, Charlcie Legler, Sally A. Norton, John Passacantando, Joseph Phelan, Nicole Prichard, Morgan Ress, MacDonald Scott, Jeri Wohlberg, Lesley Wood, Samantha Young and Stephen Zimmerman. 6. "Claimant(s)" - Class members who actually file claims pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Agreement. 7. "Class Settlement Fund" - Sum to be paid by the Defendant District of Columbia totaling $8,251,333, subject to reversion, which will be funded and/or distributed as further described in this Agreement. The Class Settlement Fund is comprised of four components: Class Representatives' Funds, Claimants' Funds, Attorneys Fees and Costs Funds, and Notification and Administration Funds.
2
9 initials, on behalf of District Defendants ('1/
C""Jfl on behalf of plaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 3 of 24
a) "Class Representatives' Funds" - That portion of the Class Settlement Fund awarded and distributed to each ofthe 17 Class Representatives on an equal basis. The total amount of these funds shall be $850,000. b) "Claimants' Funds" - That portion of the Class Settlement Fund to be awarded and distributed to Class Members. The total amount of these funds shall be $4,788,000 subject to allocation, distribution and potential reversion as described further below. c) "Attorneys Fees and Costs Funds" - That portion of the Class Settlement Fund awarded as attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel. The total amount of these funds shall be $2,463,333. d) "Notification and Administration Funds" - That portion of the Class Settlement Fund to be used to compensate the Class Administrator and any third parties who may provide related services, to provide Class Members notification of the Settlement, to advertise or communicate notice, and to administer the Settlement Agreement and distribution of funds. The amount of these funds is allocated at $150,000, as detailed further in Section U(A)(4) herein. 8. "District Defendants" - The District of Columbia, Charles H. Ramsey in both official and individual capacities, and Peter J. Newsham in both official and individual capacities. 9. "Non-District of Columbia Defendants" - Any remaining defendants who are not District Defendants. 10. "Department" or "MPD" - The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department.
~:?t 3 initials, on behalfof Distriet Defendants on behalf of plaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 4 of 24
11. "Fairness Hearing" - The final hearing on the fairness of this Settlement Agreement, at which the Court will detennine whether to grant Final District Court Approval. 12. "Final District Court Approval" - The Order, following submission of this Settlement Agreement to the Court, by which the District Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement. 13. "Parties" or "the Parties" - All parties to this Settlement Agreement, to include all Plaintiffs and all District of Columbia Defendants. 14. "Plaintiffs" - Where the tenn "Plaintiffs" is used it refers to all Class Representatives, and all class members who have not opted-out. 15. "Preliminary District Court Approval" - The Order, following submission of this Settlement Agreement to the Court, by which the District Court grants initial and preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. 16. Settlement and Judgment Fund - The Settlement and Judgments (S&J) Fund is a funding source within the District of Columbia municipal budget that provides fiscal resources to settle claims and lawsuits and pay judgments in most types of civil cases filed against the District of Columbia. It is an uncapped fund, and therefore this element of relief will not affect the availability of funds for settlements or judgments regarding other lawsuits against the District. II. Monetary Relief
A. Monetary Settlement for the Class, Class Representatives, Attorney's fees and Administration of the Class Fund
The class-wide monetary settlement is a total of$8,251,333, subject to reversion, which includes, the Class Representative Funds, the Claimants' Funds, the Attorney Fees and Costs Funds and the Notification and Administration Funds. The fund is broken down as follows:
4 initials, on behalf of District Defendants on behalf of plaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 5 of 24
1. The 17 Class Representatives shall collectively receive a total of $850,000 ($50,000 per named Class Representative).
2. Each member ofthe class (355 class members) shall receive compensation from the Claimants' Fund of$4,788,000 (subject to allocation, distribution and possible reversion of funds to the District), if a timely notice of claim and submission ofproof of entitlement is submitted to and approved by the fund administrator in the following manner. i. Should the participation rate be higher than 75% of eligible ~laimants (266 participating claimants), each claimant shall be allocated and awarded a pro-rata share of Claimants' Funds. This will result in a payment to each of some measure less than $18,000. ii. Should the participation rate be equal to or lower than 75% of eligible claimants (266 participating claimants), each claimant shall be allocated and awarded a pro rata share of Claimants' Fund, subject to a maximum of $18,000. Under nearly all circumstances, this will result in a payment to each of $18,000. The District shall receive reversion of unallocated Claimant Funds.
3. The Claimants' Fund of $4,788,000 is the ceiling on the District's payments to the class claimants.
4. The cost of administrating the funds and determining or adjudicating submitted claims is allocated to be $150,000. In the event that actual costs for Notification and Administration, including costs associated with determining class eligibility of any claimants whose identities and arrests are not reflected in law enforcement or government records, exceed the $150,000 allocation, the excess costs will be shared and paid for by
'ti 5 initials, on behalfof District Defendants on behalf of plaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 6 of 24
the Claimants and the District of Columbia equally, on a 50-50% basis. The payments for such excess expenditures, if any, on behalf of Claimants shall be paid from within Claimants' Funds. Such payments on behalf of the District may be paid from reversion funds, or from the Settlement and Judgment fund, as may be determined by the District. 5. The attorney's fees and cost allocation is $2,463,333. 6. With respect to monetary relief, the notice and claim process shall provide individual class members with an opportunity to request exclusion, or to "opt out," from the monetary portion of the Settle~ent Agreement. Opts outs on the monetary relief are allowed as may be approved by the court. B. Timing of Deposits by the Districtl 1. D.C. Deposits Monies for Class-Wide Monetary Remedies (Class Rtmresentatives' Funds. Claimants' Funds. Notification and Administration Funds) and for All Attorney's Fees and Costs The District of Columbia shall deposit funds into an escrow account to be administered by the Class Administrator in accordance with the timing and schedule set forth herein. The deposit of funds into the escrow account is distinct from the actual disbursement of funds from the escrow account to recipients. 1st Deposit: Within 45 days of the Preliminary District Court Approval, the District of Columbia will deposit the $150,000 constituting the Notification and Administration Funds. 2nd Deposit: Within 45 days of Final District Court Approval, or by September 30,2010 if there is no final approval of the settlement, which-ever comes first, the District will deposit the Class Representatives' Funds ($850,000), and 60% of the remaining Class Settlement Funds (including 60% of the amount allocated for attorney's fees and costs).
~U 6 initials, on behalfofDistricl Defendanls C; on behalf of plaintiffs L

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 7 of 24

3rd Deposit. After Final District Court Approval, the District will deposit the remainder of the
Claimant Fund and Attorneys Fees and Costs Funds (the balance left after the 1st and 2nd payments minus any reversion of Claimant Funds to the District) by September 1,2011.
C. Timing of Distribution of Funds to Class Representatives, Fund Administrator, Claimants and Payment of Fees and Costs

1. Upon Preliminary District Court Approval of the settlement, and upon deposit by the

District, the $150,000 for Notification and Administration Funds shall be made available

to the Class Administrator.

2. Plaintiffs and the Class Administrator shall petition the Court for authority to release

funds to the Class Representatives, Claimants and Class Counsel.

3. However, no funds may be distributed to the Class Representatives, Class

Members/Claimants or Class Counsel (attorney's fees and costs) without both Final

District Court Approval ofthe settlement and the exhaustion of all appeals and any period

oftime in which an objector or challenger may seek review by way of a Writ of

Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

4. In the event the settlement is not upheld on appeal or is reversed upon review by the U.S.

Supreme Court, all funds (with interest) minus the spent administrative costs shall be

returned to the District

III. Class-Wide Prospective Relief

A. Expungement and Annulment of Arrests

1. Expungement and annulment relief was granted by Court Order dated January 28,2008

(Dkt. No. 405). Among other relief set forth in that Order, the Court did declare that "The

arrests of the Barham Plaintiffs and the absent class members are hereby declared null

n and void. Each of the Barham plaintiffs and the individual absent class members is

/J'vf( 7

~~.. J

initials, on behalf of District Defendants

on behalf of plaintiffs.--\.(..;.,.....c..::..e.f4-

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 8 of 24

authorized to deny the occurrence ofhis or her arrest that day, without being subject to any penalty of perjury, fraud or other offense premised upon misrepresentation or deception in response to any inquiry, whether posed orally or in writing. These rights accrue to the full benefit of any absent class member regardless of whether an individualized entry of a nullification order [see below] is entered." 2. The January 28,2008 Order also provided for the creation of individualized orders of annulment, that for each class member, the Clerk of Court would receive and the Court would issue an order that states as follows:

ORDER The arrest of [insert name, date of birth, and social security number] on September 27, 2002, in the District of Columbia is hereby declared null and void.

[Mr. or Ms. insert last name] is authorized to deny the occurrence of his or her arrest that day, without being subject to any penalty of perjury, fraud, or other offense premised upon misrepresentation or deception in response to any query, whether posed orally or in writing.

So Ordered on this __ day of _ _ _ _ [date to be inserted]

[signed] EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge

3. The Class Administrator shall assist with the preparation and mailing of the

individualized annulment orders. Counsel for the Barham Plaintiffs will file with the

Clerk of the Court, under seal, paper copies of draft orders, one for each Barham Class

Representative or Claimant, bearing the case caption and stating as provided in paragraph

4 of the Court Order dated January 28,2008 (Dkt. No. 405).

4. Among other things, the expungement relief in the January 28, 2008 Order requires that

"The District of Columbia shall provide for the expungement of the Barham Plaintiffs'

8

(L".O initials, on behalf of District Defendants_tf.,(--.I, ~
e7tl on behalf ofplaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 9 of 24
arrest records and for those of all absent class members (all persons arrested on September 27,2002 [in the] mass arrest of persons that took place in Pershing Park) relating to the September 27, 2002 arrests that are maintained by the District of Columbia..." The Order also requires that "The District of Columbia is to use its best efforts to procure expungement of the September 27, 2002 arrest records of any Pershing Park case Plaintiff or absent class member in the possession of the United States Government (including, but not limited to, the Federal Bureau of Investigation), [or] any state or local government. .." 5. A copy of the January 28,2008 Order is attached herein as Exhibit 3. B. Changes to Policies and Practices 1. Document Management System and Protocol; Evidence Indexing and Logging Requirements. Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court), the District of Columbia will develop, maintain and/or implement a document management protocol or system to ensure the preservation of records and documents arising from mass demonstrations and protests, and to be used also in other litigation brought against the District of Columbia as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General, encompassing the Office of the Attorney General and the MPD Office of General Counsel that provides for the following: i. Maintain an index and log of any documents, items, things, recorded or
electronic/computer/digitized material (hereinafter "record(s)") that are directly related to a complaint or litigation hold letter for matters arising from mass
9
initials, on behalf of District Defendants on behalf of plaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 10 of 24
demonstrations and protests or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General; ii. The index will assign a unique identifier to each record and, if possible, will be numbered or identified in a continuous or contiguous manner. One of the intents of the parties is to provide an internal "audit trail" that would alert the District to any missing records or evidence. iii. The indexing for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests (or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by t~e Attorney General) is intended as an internal control over document management; use of the indexing system described in this section, (III)(B)(l), is mandatory for all records received or reviewed in connection with a case for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests (or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General); in the event that, due to the physicality or medium of an item, a copy of the item cannot be maintained or stored within a computer-based document management system, the requirements of above-referenced sub-paragraph (ii) still requires such items to be indexed and logged in an effective manner, i.e. in a central hard copy log or a dedicated spreadsheet; and the fact that a record is indexed is not intended to establish that the record is discoverable, relevant or admissible; iv. Communications that are protected by attorney-client privilege or protected as work product are not required or intended to be subject to this particular indexing, unless so desired by the District of Columbia in its own discretion; v. Records shall be indexed in the indexing system described and required by section (III)(B)(I) as soon as possible upon collection or review.
10 initials, on behalf of District Defendants on behalf ofplaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 11 of 24
2. "Litigation Hold" Procedures and Practices to Prevent Loss or Destruction of Evidence. Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms, the OAG shall issue policy statements mandating that upon written notice of likely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records pertaining to alleged police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests, the OAG shall affirmatively direct in writing and ensure that all documents, records, items, videos or computer files relating to the underlying. incident be preserved and affirmatively protected from destruction for a period of no less than three (3) years. "Notice oflikely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records" is any notification in writing to the Chief of Police, or the Mayor; and/or service upon the Office of the Attorney General of a civil action complaint for matters alleging police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests. The contractual definition used herein of "notice oflikely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records" is not intended to alter the meaning of those terms of art as may be used by established reported case law precedent in the District of Columbia.
3. Preservation and Indexing of Command Center and Communications Systems Records and Data. Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court), the MPD shall issue policy statements or general orders mandating that whenever a system is activated to assist in the management ofmass demonstrations and protests or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General, all computer files,
1;f!( 11 initials, on behalfofDistrict Defendants on behalf of plaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 12 of 24
communications recordings / radio runs and documents reasonably related to the event shall be preserved and indexed for a period of no less than three (3) years. 4. Procedures and Practices to Index and Log Photographic or Video or other Recorded Evidence. Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court), whenever any MPD officer is assigned to (or with the capability to) engage in photographic or video recording or surveillance of mass demonstration activity or protests; documentation shall be maintained reflecting the officer's name, assignment, the equipment and recording media issued; and indexing and logging the return of all media. Upon the return of any media, the officer shall document the dates, times, locations and events recorded and affix such information to the media itself or secure to the container that contains the media. This provision is intended solely to focus on indexing and record-keeping; it does not authorize under what circumstances such surveillance or recordings may occur. This provision is not intended to supplant or supercede orders or rules pertaining to the use of closed circuit television and cataloging requirements set forth in such applicable orders or rules. 5. Communications with Class Counsel to Ensure Compliance. The District of Columbia, through the Office of Attorney General, shall engage in communications with and respond to reasonable inquiries from class counsel, as to the status and/or completion of the obligations set forth in the section, "Changes to Policies and Practices." 6. Mandatory Reporting Obligations. At six month intervals during the three year period of required implementation, the District of Columbia shall issue a report regarding measures
12
'S;U initials, on behalf of District Defendants t:-Jl! on behalfofplaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 13 of 24
taken to perform the requirements of section (III)(B), "Changes to Policies and Practices." Class Counsel shall be provided an advance copy of the report and provided opportunity to comment. The District shall consider the comments by Class Counsel. The comments or response of Class Counsel, if any, shall be incorporated as an included attachment or exhibit and published in the final report. The reports shall be transmitted to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, as well as made publicly available. Additionally, the District shall consult and communicate with Class Counsel during the system acquisition or procurement process. 7. Funding for Development and Operation of Document Management System. The District of Columbia shall use either the class/claimant funds that revert back to the District of Columbia under the settlement, if any, or the Settlement and Judgment Fund to pay the costs of the development and operation of the document management system. C. No opts outs for the equitable relief are allowed. IV. Notice to Class Members and Potential Claimants A. Notice shall be sent as soon as practical after Preliminary District Court Approval. ,B. The Class Administrator shall send a copy of the Notice (Exhibit I) and the Proof of Claim Fonn (Exhibit 2) to all Class Members who can be identified through reasonable effort. C. The Class Administrator shall send a copy of the Notice (Exhibit I) and the Proof of Claim Fonn (Exhibit 2) by first class mail to the last known address of each class member. D. The Class Administrator shall undertake reasonable efforts, including through public records searches and use of the United States Postal Service address forwarding database, to detennine the current address of Class Members who fail to respond to initial notice or whose initial notice by first class mail is returned to sender by the U.S. Postal Service. Under such circumstances, and where such Class Member's current address is discernable, the Class
13
flr't/ initials, on behalf of District Defendants
Z1l1 on behalf ofplaintiffs t

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 14 of 24
Administrator shall additionally send a copy of the Notice (Exhibit 1) and the Proof of Claim Form (Exhibit 2) by first class mail to the current address of such Class Member. E. A modified and shortened form of Class Notice shall be published by the Class Counsel and/or the Class Administrator in the Washington Post and in the Washington City Paper. The notice shall be published in the Washington Post once a week for two consecutive weeks, including at least once in a Sunday edition. The notice shall be published for two consecutive weekly editions of the Washington City Paper. The notice shall be published twice each in no less than three regional or national periodicals/media outlets to be selected by Class Counsel based on an expectation that the subject matter is either of general interest or corresponds to subject matter interests of the protestor or protest groups who, or whose constituents, participated in the demonstration that was subject to the September 27, 2002 mass arrest. F. The Class Administrator shall publish the full Notice on the Internet. G. During the Notice and Claim period, the Class Administrator shall provide periodic reports to Class Counsel as to the status and progress of the claim submission and administration process. H. The Class Counsel and/or Class Representatives shall also endeavor to publish or circulate announcements or shortened notices on web sites or e-mail lists oftheir selection, in efforts to reach Class Members. I. During the Notice and Claim period, the District of Columbia shall publish a link to the Notice to Class Members and Proof of Claim Form on the front page of the Metropolitan Police Department's web site (www.mpdc.dc.gov) and on the front page of the D.C. Office of the Attorney General's web site (www.oag.dc.gov). The links shall be posted during the
~ 14 initials, on behalfofDistrict Defendants on behalf of plaintiffs---bl£f-

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 15 of 24
period between the date that initial notice forms are mailed out through the date/deadline for
"
the mailing of objections.
v. Deadlines for Submitting Claim Forms and to Request Exclusion or to Opt Out
A. The Class Notice shall advise Class Members that they must file a claim form or request exclusion by a date certain, which date will be at approximately 90 days from the date the initial notices are sent out.
B. The Class Notice shall advise that the court will exclude from the class, or allow to "opt out" from the class, any Class M~ber who so requests. Any Class Member wishing to "opt out" or be excluded must so request in writing, by letter postmarked or received in hand by the "opt out" or exclusion deadline.
C. Any Class Member wishing to pursue a claim must file a Proof of Claim Form (Exhibit 2) by the claims submission deadline in order to participate in the distribution of Claimants' Funds. Proof of Claim Forms must be postmarked or received in hand by the claims submission deadline.
VI. Class Member Objections A. Any Class Member who wishes to object to the terms of this Settlement Agreement shall be required, not less than 30 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, to submit a written statement to the Court, with copies to counsel, setting forth his or her objections. The statement shall contain the Class member's name, signature, address and telephone number, along with a written statement of his or her objection(s) to the settlement Agreement and the reason(s) for the objection(s). Class Counsel and defense counsel shall each file a response to such objections at least 15 days prior to the Fairness Hearing.
VII. Other General Provisions
F~ 15 initials, on behalf ofDistrict Defendants on behalf ofplaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 16 of 24

1. General Release: Plaintiffs shall fully release, forgive and discharge the District of Columbia, its officers, agents and employees for all claims arising from or that could have been asserted by plaintiffs andlor accepting class members as a result of the allegations in the complaint under any theory of liability (including any request for attorney's fees and costs in prosecuting this case including any discovery disputes), including any such claims or lawsuits in any other proceeding or forum. In entering into this settlement, there is no admission of liability by the District defendants or admission of any factual contentions that have been asserted by plaintiffs in this litigation. The plaintiffs do not suggest or concede a lack of merit to their claims or to any factual contention that has been asserted by plaintiffs in this litigation.
2. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights: No third party who is not an Individual Plaintiff or Class Member shall have any rights under the Settlement Agreement.
3. Non-Severability: The Parties do not intend this Agreement to be severable absent express written agreement by the Parties.
4. Duty to Defend the Agreement: The Parties and their counsel agree to defend the Settlement Agreement. Counsel for Plaintiffs may not undertake the representation of individuals opting out of the settlement or persons who wish to object to the settlement whether on monetary or equitable relief. Counsel for the District of Columbia Defendants shall take no positions contrary to, or inconsistent with, the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
5. Notice and Cure Provision: In the event of any alleged or actual systemic violation of the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs through counsel shall provide written notice of such to the District of Columbia through counsel. The District of Columbia shall have 60 days

ifJt 16

~('

initials, on behalf of District Defendants

on behalf ofplaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 17 of 24
to remedy any systemic violation prior to plaintiffs seeking enforcement through a breach of contract claim. 6. Enforcement: i. Enforcement of Right of Expungement and for Monetary Payments. The United
States District Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the expungement and monetary payment tenus for a period of three years from the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court). ii. Enforcement of Document Management and Retention Requirements. a. The Document Management and Retention Requirements are those provisions in
section (III)(B) ("Changes to Policies and Practices") of this Settlement Agreement. b. The District agrees to perform the requirements of the Document Management and Retention Requirements for a period of no less than three years from the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court). c. The Document Management and Retention Requirements may be extended for no more than two one year periods upon motion by the District of Columbia if the District of Columbia believes that such an extension is required to bring the defendants into compliance with the requirements ofthe settlement. The parties' intent is to fully fund, through this agreement, the acquisition, development and
17 initials, on behalf of District Defendants on behalf ofplaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 18 of 24

training costs for the Document Management System, which would be expected to be greater in the initial years of implementation than in subsequent periods, and to establish funding for three years, or as may be extended, a period of time believed to be amply sufficient for the use and benefits of the system to be well established. d. The United States District Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the requirements of the Document Management and Retention Requirements for three years from the Court's final approval of the settlement of this matter and exhaustion of any appeals (including any Petition for Writ of
,
-,
Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court). e. The Plaintiffs do not have a right of enforcement more than three years from the
date of Final District Court Approval and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court). iii. Except as provided above, the remedy for enforcement is by way of a breach of contract claim subject to the notice and cure provision.
7. Expiration of Agreement i. Unless extended by the Court upon motion of the District of Columbia, this Settlement Agreement shall expire automatically within three years of the last of the following events: Final District Court Approval; disposition of all appeals; denial of any appeal or petitions for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.

18

t% initials, on behalfofDistrict Defendants

on behalf ofplaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 19 of 24

ii. Should there be an extension of the Document Management and Retention Requirements, the Settlement Agreement shall expire upon termination of the extension period.
iii. However, the only requirement that remains in place during any extension period is the obligation to maintain the document management system described in the agreement. During the extension period, if any, there is no further obligation to confer with plaintiffs or submit reports to Judge Sullivan.
8. Suspension of discovery: Upon signing of this agreement Plaintiffs (and Plaintiffs' Counsel) and the District of Columbia Defendants (and their counsel) shall jointly suspend all pending discovery against each other in Barham v. Ramsey.
9. Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval: Within two weeks ofthe signing of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties will file a joint motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.
10. Class Eligibility and Qualification: It is the shared intent and objective that eligibility criteria and processes be effective to include all persons who fall within the class definition and to exclude from qualification any persons who were not arrested in Pershing Park in the District of Columbia on September 27,2002.

The Class Representative on behalf of the Class and the District defendants acknowledge the possibility that persons genuinely subject to the underlying arrest at Pershing Park will not be properly identified or documented in law enforcement records; and

consequently seek to provide sufficient guidance to enable the Class Administrator to qualify individuals, in the potential presence of inaccurate or incomplete records, where

~t 19

1

initials,

on

behalf

of District on behalf

Defendants o f plambffs

~

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 20 of 24
such individuals were in fact subject to the underlying arrest.
The Class Administrator, in consultation with Class Counsel, shall develop processes for achieving these objectives, within and consistent with the following guidelines:
a. The Class Administrator or its designee shall be the determinator of the class eligibility of Claimants, consistent with the class definition approved by the Court in the settlement of this action.
b. A Claimant shall be deemed eligible ifhis or her identity is reflected in a government or law enforcement or court record(s) as having been arrested in connection with the underlying class arrest. (i) A government or law enforcement record is any record created or issued or maintained by a law enforcement agency, a government agency or court. (ii) The record need not have been maintained in the exclusive custody of government, and can be constituted by a law enforcement or government or court receipt or record issued to the claimant in relation to the arrest or release. (iii)The record/form/item need not be strictly denominated as an "arrest record" in order to establish class qualification. For example, any of the following records would be acceptable if they evidence identity and class membership: bus/van transport log; record ofjudicial release or processing; a property receipt or bag; citation release or post-and-forfeit form or record, etc. (iv)If circumstances arise where an individual is identified as being arrested on the relevant day, but records are ambiguous or contradictory as to the location
20 initials, on behalf ofDistrict Defendants on behalf ofplaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 21 of 24

or circumstances of arrest as being consistent with the qualifying mass arrest,

the Class Administrator is to provide Class Counsel and Defense Counsel the

identity and any other pertinent information pertaining to the claimant and

request in writing that counsels, upon independent review of their and law

enforcement records, advise whether they possess any information related to

the claimant's class membership.

c. The Class Administrator may develop processes or standards to qualify persons

who are believed or determined by the Class Administrator to have, in fact, been

subject to the underlying mass arrest but whose arrest is not properly or

completely documented in law enforcement records, subject to and within the

following guidelines:

(i) Where a Claimant attests to class membership, but the fact of his or her arrest

is not documented in law enforcement records, the Class Administrator shall

provide to Class Counsel and Defense Counsel the identity and any other

pertinent information pertaining to the claimant and request in writing that

counsels, upon independent review of their and law enforcement records,

advise whether they possess any information related to the claimant's class

membership.

(ii) Class qualification may be established where such individual can provide to

the Class Administrator's satisfaction that he or she was, in fact, subject to the

underlying class arrest through presentation of information and/or evidence.

Such information or evidence is not intended to be strictly limited to any

particular form or format, and may for example include photographic

21

i2fJ initials, on behalfofDistrict Defendants on behalf ofplaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 22 of 24

evidence of the claimant under arrest, but must be deemed sufficiently reliable

and relevant for the Class Administrator to make a determination, which shall

rest in the Class Administrator or designee's sole judgment.

(iii)In such circumstances, in addition to whatever other presentation he or she

may make to the satisfaction of the Class Administrator, such Claimant shall

be required to secure and submit sworn and notarized affidavits from two

qualified Class Members attesting that each possesses personal knowledge,

subject to penalty ofpeIjury, that claimant was subject to the underlying mass

arrest in Pershing Park specifically. For the purposes of this subsection, each

of the two qualified Class Members shall be required to have been qualified

based on their arrest being documented and manifest in law enforcement,

government or court records.

d. The Class Administrator, working in conjunction with Class Counsel, may

develop and implement additional criteria or standards for determining the

eligibility of persons who were juveniles at the time of arrest.

e. The Class Administrator shall be required to maintain Claimant information and

records in strict confidentiality, to be used solely for the purposes of class

administration.

£ The Class Representatives on behalf of the Class and the District defendants

recognize that class identification data is reflected to certain partial extent in

records from multiple sources, primarily in hard copy format, and that such data

may need to be scanned, parsed, aggregated, de-duplicated, and organized in a

meaningful manner or database to facilitate class member determinations. The

22

btv initials, on behalfof District Defendants on behalf ofplaintiffs 7ft

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 23 of 24

Class Administrator is authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to undertake such efforts itself or through a third-party contractor. If a third-party infonnation technologies contractor or finn is utilized, that contractor or finn will be required to agree in writing to maintaining all infonnation in confidence and to return/destroy such data upon task completion. 11. Return of Documents: Plaintiffs shall return to the District of Columbia all documents and any copies thereof produced by the District of Columbia that are subject to a protective order, within 30 days of the tennination of~e case and the expiration of the period for any appeals or objections. 12. Amendments: With the consent of the Parties, additional provisions maybe added to the Settlement Agreement to assure appropriate implementation and court approval. 13. Multiple Originals Acceptable: The Parties agree that multiple originals of this Settlement Agreement may be executed. The Parties' or counsel's signatures need not appear on the same signature page. 14. Non-District of Columbia Defendant Claims: This Settlement Agreement does not encompass nor encumber Plaintiffs' advance of claims against non-District of Columbia Defendants.

Signed and Agreed to by:

DATE: L /!g/~O/O

4

l

~c ~(~ I11AJlc4,~

Peter J. lckles

I

~

Attorney General for the District of Columbia

1350 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

~J 23 initials, on behalfof District Defendants on behalf of plaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 595-3 Filed 03/05/10 Page 24 of 24

DATE: JA'l/JoIO

~a~
Carl essmeo (#450033) Mara Verheyden-Hilliard (#450031)
PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND
617 Florida Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 232-1180 Counselfor Plaintiffs

24
initials, on behalf of District Defendants ~1
on behalf ofplaintiffs,.L..!.;....L~/.,,-.:':.._.

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 597 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES RAMSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 02-CV-2283 (EGS)(JMF)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NOTICE OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The Barham Class and District defendants respectfully herein inform the Court that they

have executed a First Amendment to the Settlement Agreement in this matter. The Proposed

Settlement Agreement was submitted as Exhibit 1 to the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval

of Proposed Class Settlement, Notice to Class and Notice of Fairness Hearing, filed on March 5,

2010. The Agreement appears on the Docket as Doc. No. 595-3.

The First Amendment to the Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Attachment 1.

Respectfully submitted,

PETER J. NICKLES Attorney General for the District of Columbia
GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division
ELLEN A. EFROS [250746] Assistant Deputy Litigation Division

/s/ Carl Messineo, [450033] Mara Verheyden-Hilliard [450031] Radhika Miller [984306] PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 617 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 232-1180 (202) 747-7747 fax Attorneys for Plaintiffs

1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 597 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 2
MONIQUE A. PRESSLEY [464432] Senior Assistant Attorney General Equity Section I 441 4th Street, NW, 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-6610 Fax: (202) 741-0424 monique.pressley@dc.gov SHANA L. FROST [458021] Assistant Attorney General /s/ Chad Copeland_____________________ CHAD COPELAND [982119] Assistant Attorney General Equity Section I On Behalf of the District defendants DATED: March 29, 2010.
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 597-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 597-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 599 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 2

JEFFREY BARHAM et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES RAMSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 02-CV-2283 (EGS)(JMF)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER On consideration of the parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement, Notice to Class, and Notice of Fairness Hearing, it is by the Court hereby ORDERED that the parties’ motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the proposed Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved pending further consideration at a fairness hearing. The proposed notice, use of an abbreviated notice, Proof of Claim form, and response deadlines stated in these documents are approved (July 15, 2010 as deadline to file a Proof of Claim form, request exclusion, and/or submit any objection). The Court also approves the proposed firm of Gilardi & Co., L.L.C. as Class Administrator. On or before April 30, 2010, the Class Administrator will: (a) mail the notice and Proof of Claim form by first class mail to the last known address of each class member, and (b) post the notice and Proof of Claim form on a website associated with the class settlement administration. By that same date and continuing through July 15, 2010, the District of Columbia shall publish a link to the Notice and Proof of Claim Form on the front page of the Metropolitan Police Department’s web site (www.mpdc.dc.gov) and on the front page of the D.C. Office of the Attorney General’s

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 599 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2

web site (www.oag.dc.gov), and the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund shall publish the same on

the front page of its web site (www.justiceonline.org). A modified and shortened form of Class

Notice shall be published in the Washington Post once a week for two consecutive weeks,

including at least once in a Sunday edition; in two consecutive weekly editions of the

Washington City Paper; and twice each in no less than three regional or national

periodicals/media outlets to be selected based on the expectation that the subject matter of the

periodical/media outlet is either of general interest or corresponds to perceived subject matter

interests of the protestors or protest groups who, or whose constituents, participated in the

demonstration that was subject to the mass arrest.

The Class Administrator shall file its report with the Court by August 1, 2010.

The parties shall file responses to any objections by no later than September 1, 2010.

A fairness hearing will be held on September 17, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A

before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

SO ORDERED.

Signed:

Emmet G. Sullivan

United

States District Judge

March

30, 2010

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 1 of 42

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES RAMSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 02-CV-2283 (EGS)(JMF)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT AND PAYMENT DISTRIBUTION The class representatives, and defendants District of Columbia, Charles H. Ramsey in his official and individual capacities and Peter J. Newsham in his official and individual capacities, respectfully move the Court for an order granting final approval of the proposed Class Settlement Agreement and distribution of payment. The parties, in support, rely on the accompanying memorandum.
Respectfully submitted,

PETER J. NICKLES Attorney General for the District of Columbia
GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division
ELLEN A. EFROS [250746] Assistant Deputy Litigation Division
MONIQUE A. PRESSLEY [464432] Senior Assistant Attorney General

/s/ Carl Messineo, [450033] Mara Verheyden-Hilliard [450031] PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 617 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 232-1180 (202) 747-7747 fax
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 2 of 42
Equity Section I 441 4th Street, NW, 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-6610 Fax: (202) 741-0424 monique.pressley@dc.gov SHANA L. FROST [458021] Assistant Attorney General /s/ Monique A. Pressley_____________________ MONIQUE A. PRESSLEY Assistant Attorney General Equity Section I Attorneys for Defendants District of Columbia, Charles H. Ramsey and Terrance W. Gainer DATED: September 7, 2010
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 3 of 42

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES RAMSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 02-CV-2283 (EGS)(JMF)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT AND PAYMENT DISTRIBUTION
For the reasons stated below, the motions and relief requested herein should be granted.

I. Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and Payment Distribution

The parties jointly presented the Court with the Settlement Agreement and basis

demonstrating that the  proposed  settlement,  relief  and  payments  therein  are  “fair,  reasonable,  and  

adequate,”  and  which  detailed  the  substantial  equitable  relief  that  has  issued  changing  police  

practices and policies as pertains to conduct during mass demonstration activities. See Joint

Motion for Prel. App., Supporting Memo. at 2 – 16 (Dkt. No. 595) (also attached as Exhibit 1).

There are no facts or circumstances that have developed since that detailed submission

that would counsel otherwise.

Since that filing, Judge Paul L. Friedman has granted final approval to the class action in

Becker v. District of Columbia, Civil Action 01-0811, which arose from a predecessor mass

arrest in connection with the April 2000 IMF / World Bank protests and which was structured

nearly identically to the relief proposed herein for the benefit of the Barham class, which was

subject to a mass arrest in connection with the September 2002 IMF / World Bank protests. The

1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 4 of 42
Barham plaintiffs, in their complaint, alleged the September 2002 Barham mass arrest to be a perpetuation of ongoing challenged police tactics that were manifest in connection with the April 2000 mass arrest, as well as during the January 2001 Presidential Inaugural protests, among other instances. Barham First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 16) ¶¶ 3 – 5.
Reflecting on the historic and substantial nature of the equitable relief and reforms, secured through litigation, settlement, and legislation which Judge Friedman observed to be the “direct  result”  of  the  protest  class  actions  and  related work, the Court at the Becker Fairness Hearing found that
“There   are   First   Amendment   protections   through   this   lawsuit   and   through   the   impact of this and the other lawsuits have had on the legislative arm of the District of Columbia government, the council of the District of Columbia. The equitable relief has effectively changed the landscape, both practically on the streets and legally, in the courts of the District of Columbia and under law as pertains  to  police  conduct  during  mass  demonstrations.” Transcript of June 30, 2010 Fairness Hearing Before the Honorable Paul L. Friedman at 31 (Exhibit 2). The parties concur with this assessment, jointly reaffirm their representations in the Barham Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval and jointly move the Court to grant final approval of the Settlement and payment distribution therein. On March 30, 2010, this Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. (Dkt. No. 599). The Court approved and directed the form and manner of notice to the class. Id. As detailed herein, those procedures have been implemented. As referenced below, the Administrator received 321 timely claim forms and zero latefiled claims. Declaration of Ryanne Cozzi, attached as Exhibit 3,  (hereinafter  “Cozzi  Decl.”)  ¶15. As of September 1, 2010, the Class Administrator has resolved all but four of the claims filed and,  to  date,  has  “determined  that  299  are  filed  by  claimants  who  have  been  determined  to  be   eligible  Class  Members.”  First  Supplemental  Declaration  of  Ryanne  Cozzi,  attached as Exhibit 4
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 5 of 42
(hereinafter  “Cozzi  First  Supp.  Decl.”)  ¶2.The Class Administrator is diligently working towards final resolution of the four pending claims and will file an additional supplement to report when resolved. Id. ¶3. One claim was denied because the claimant had previously entered into a settlement agreement with the District for the same underlying events. Cozzi Decl. ¶16 (Exhibit 3). The remainder of the claims have been denied based on the fact that the individuals were arrested at locations outside of Pershing Park such that they are conclusively not Class Members or based on the failure to evidence class membership. Id. ¶¶16-17.
Reflecting the overwhelmingly positive support by the class of the Settlement, the participation rate is an astounding 85%.
Aside from a rambling unfocused submission from counsel in Chang v. US, Civil Action No. 02-2010, there has been received only one timely letter of objection. The merits of those objections have been addressed in filings by the parties at Barham Dkt. Nos.623, 624, 625. This very low level of objection itself weighs in favor of approval of the settlement. See Thomas v. Albright, 139 F.3d 227, 232 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“[A]  settlement  can  be  fair  even  though  a   significant  portion  of  the  class  and  some  of  the  named  plaintiffs  object  to  it.”); Radosti v. Envision, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56373, at *57 (D.D.C. June 8, 2010) (same); In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig. (Lorazepam II), 2003 WL 22037741, at *6 (D.D.C. June 16, 2003) (the  “existence  of  even  a  relatively  few  objections  certainly  counsels  in  favor  of   approval”).
Each of the seventeen class representatives supports the settlement. Collectively and individually the class representatives reflect a broad and diverse spectrum of persons arrested including demonstrators, media, legal observers, bystanders or interested persons who had
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 6 of 42
approached to witness and observe, or associate with, the free speech activities occurring within Pershing Park.
In light of the record, the extraordinary equitable reforms and relief, the sufficiency of the monetary relief, and for reasons stated herein, the Court should issue final approval of the proposed settlement and payment terms. As presented in the motion for preliminary approval, (Dkt. No. 595), and herein, the Settlement  and  payment  distribution  are  “fair,  reasonable,  and   adequate” and should be approved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
A. Form and Manner of Notice to the Class As approved by the Court in its March 30,  2010  Order,  Gilardi  &  Co.,  LLC  (“Gilardi”),   served as Claims Administrator for the Settlement and oversaw the dissemination of Notice to the identifiable Class Members. Cozzi Decl. ¶1 (Exhibit 3). Gilardi reports receipt of 321 timely Claim Forms. Id. ¶15. Of those 321, a total of 299 Claims have been deemed submitted by eligible class members, and four (4) claims remain pending as of September 1, 2010. Cozzi First Supp. Decl. ¶¶1, 2 (Exhibit 4). The  Settlement  Class’  reaction  to the Settlement has been overwhelmingly positive. Apart from the Chang plaintiffs, not a single Class Member has requested exclusion during the claims period, Cozzi Decl. ¶14 (Exhibit 3). The Chang plaintiffs did send a letter to the Administrator in which they advised  that  “The  Chang Plaintiffs have previously opted out of any participation in the Barham class  action.  .  .”  Id. As  required  by  the  Court’s  March 30, 2010 Order, the Notice distributed to the Class set forth the rights of Class Members under the Settlement, including their rights to (a) exclude themselves from the Class and the Settlement, see Cozzi Decl., Exhibit A (Notice) at 1, 2, 4, 10, 11 (pages each referencing exclusion, providing specific procedures on page 10); (b) object to the Settlement, id. at 1, 2, 3, 9, 11 (pages each referencing right to object, providing specific
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 7 of 42
procedures on pages 11); and (c) attend the Fairness Hearing, id. at 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12 (pages each referencing Fairness Hearing, providing specific procedures to appear on pages 11 – 12).
The deadline for exclusion was specified in the Notice to be July 15, 2010. Id. at 1, 10. The deadline for objections was specified in the Notice to be July 15, 2010. Id. at 1, 11. The deadline for sending a  letter  stating  one’s  “Notice  of Intent to Appear at a Fairness Hearing in Barham, et al. v. Ramsey, et al.”  was  specified  in  the  Notice  to  be  July 15, 2010. Id. at 1, 12. Thus, the deadlines for requesting exclusion, presenting objections or stating the intent to appear at the Fairness Hearing have all passed. The Chang plaintiffs sent a letter through counsel advising that they consider themselves to have been previously excluded. Cozzi Decl. ¶14. Even if the Chang plaintiffs are deemed to be members of the class, no other class member has asked to be excluded during the claims period. No request to appear at the Fairness Hearing has been received, except for the request from Chang counsel. Declaration of Carl Messineo, attached as Exhibit 5,  (hereinafter  “Messineo   Decl.”)  at ¶6. Aside from the objections from Chang counsel, one timely letter of objection has been received from a class member and one untimely letter has been received. Id. ¶5. On or before, April 15, 2010, using all available arrest related records, Gilardi sent Notice and  Claim  Forms  (a  “Notice  Packet”)  to  the  last  known  address  of  all  identifiable  Class Members. Cozzi Decl. ¶2 (Exhibit 3). In order to ascertain the last known address of all identifiable Class Members, Gilardi reviewed and aggregated records from a multitude of sources. Id.
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 8 of 42
Using these sources, Gilardi was able to identify ostensible or last known addresses for 362 persons. Id. ¶5. Gilardi used the U.S. Postal Service National Change Of Address (NCOA) database to attempt to update these addresses. Id. ¶2.
Gilardi thereafter additionally fulfilled 103 requests for notice packages from individuals who learned of the settlement through other means, such as Publication Notices, e-mail announcements, website or toll free telephone inquiries, or whose names had been brought to Gilardi’s  attention  by  Class  Counsel.  Id. ¶7.
The address information from law enforcement records was originally assembled contemporaneous with the arrest on September 27, 2002, which meant that many addresses were no longer current. Over the course of the notice period, Gilardi received 109 Notice Packets returned by the USPS with undeliverable addresses. Id. ¶12. Five were returned by the U.S. Postal Service with updated addresses, to which the Notice Packet was promptly remailed. Id. ¶8.
Gilardi used a commercial third-party provider locator service, the Accurint Service, provided by Lexis-Nexis, (which drew upon a broader set of information than the NCOA database including public records searches and credit report header information) as an additional source to secure updated addresses information for potential Class Members who had not filed a claim in response to the initial mailing and other efforts. Id. ¶9.
On or before April 14, 2010 and throughought the claims period, Gilardi posted the Notice and Proof of Claim form on a website associated with the class settlement administration, www.PershingParkSettlement.com. Id. ¶3. That website also made available the Joint Motion for Preliminary  Approval,  the  supporting  memorandum,  the  Court’s  preliminary  approval order and the executed Settlement Agreement. See www.PershingParkSettlement.com/casedocs.html. The District of Columbia published a link to the Notice and Proof of Claim form on the front page of
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 9 of 42
the  MPD’s  website and that of the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, as did Class Counsel on the front page of the website of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. Messineo Decl. ¶8 (Exhibit 5).
Gilardi published a shortened form of the Class Notice in the Washington Post once a week for two weeks, including in one Sunday edition; in two consecutive weekly editions of the Washington City Paper; and in no less than three regional or national periodicals/media outlets selected based on the expectation that the subject matter of said periodicals was either of general interest or corresponded to perceived subject matter interests of the protest groups whose constituents participated in the protest underlying the mass arrest. A full page notice was run twice in The Nation magazine and twice in The Progressive magazine and was posted online at the website of the Huffington Post during the period of June 28, 2010 through July 12, 2010. Cozzi Decl. ¶6 (Exhibit 3).
Gilardi established a toll free telephone number from which Class Members could receive claims information and documents. Id. ¶4.
Recognizing that telephone numbers might be current even if address information was unavailable or out of date, on June 25, 2010, at the request of Class Counsel, the Administrator used the third party locator service, Accurint, to try and recover phone numbers for identified class members who had not yet filed a claim form. Gilardi engaged in phone banking to contact these persons to advise or remind them of the Settlement and upcoming filing deadlines. Id. ¶11.
On April 30, 2010, Class Counsel independently sent e-mail announcements of the Barham settlement, with links to the proof of claim form and the Notice, by e-mail to thousands of persons who have signed up for updates on the Partnership  for  Civil  Justice  Fund’s  work generally or specifically regarding the Barham class action. The e-mail requested recipients
7

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 10 of 42
redistribute the announcement widely and post on appropriate website and social networking media.  Links  or  “widgets”  were  available to click on in the e-mail that would enable the user to re-transmit the e-mail on to their friends, post to Facebook pages or circulate on Twitter. Messineo Decl. ¶9 (Exhibit 5).
Class Counsel observed the announcement re-posted on many additional email lists, websites, blogs or social media pages. The PCJF also communicated with groups or persons believed to have been involved with the underlying September 2002 protest and requested they disseminate the announcement to their constituents and, in turn, request their constituents to repost it broadly. Class Counsel understands that multiple tens of thousands of additional e-mails or electronic announcements were sent as a result of these requests. Id. ¶10.
Midway through the claims period, Gilardi sent a total of 322 postcard reminder notices to known or potential Class Members who had not yet filed a Proof of Claim. Cozzi Decl. ¶¶10, 13 (Exhibit 3).
On June 15, 2010, with about one month left in the claims period, Class Counsel undertook a second e-mail based campaign of the same scope and dimension as the first. This announcement was focused on the fact that time was running out to file claims and encouraging recipients to file claims if they themselves were arrested, or to send the announcement on to those who they believed were Class Members. Wide reposting and distribution was, again, requested of recipients. Messineo Decl. ¶11 (Exhibit 5).
Class Counsel set up an internet based  “E-Card”  facility  whereby  Class  Members or anyone could enter lists of e-mail addresses of persons who may have been arrested, to cause an electronic mail notice and announcement of the settlement and claims process to be transmitted. Id. ¶12. The E-Card facility was promoted by e-mail and on the PCJF web site. Id.
8

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 11 of 42
Class Counsel also republicized the settlement through news interviews where the Class Administrator’s  settlement  website,  phone  number,  and  other  information  was  given. Id. ¶13.
B. Class Administration and Determination of Eligibility Class Counsel has closely monitored the Class Member eligibility process. Class Counsel attests and affirms that, throughout this process, the representatives of Gilardi have been responsive to all requests for information or action, and have diligently and with care applied the standards for Class Member eligibility. Class Counsel has reviewed the basis for, and concurs with, each of the eligibility determinations made to date. Id. ¶4. At the onset of the administration process, Gilardi received arrest data from multiple sources provided by Class Counsel. Cozzi Decl. ¶2 (Exhibit 3). This was a substantial joint undertaking between Class Counsel and the Administrator because records were incomplete and fragmented. There was no single source of arrest data from which to authoritatively establish even the identification of all persons who were class members. Gilardi was provided files from multiple sources, each of which contained partial information. The types of source files included handwritten field arrest forms and computer generated field arrest forms, citations to appear, citation to release determination reports, arrestee information forms, notices of infraction, property and collateral receipts, printouts from the MPD Criminal Justice Information System, printouts from queries to the FBI National Crime Information Center, and speadsheets containing additional data produced by law enforcement during the course of litigation, among other materials. Gilardi established a database, entering the names, addresses and arrest information from the source files, utilizing procedures to eliminate duplicate entries. Id. ¶2.
9

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 12 of 42
This database was used as the initial method for confirming class eligibility. When Proof of Claim forms were received, the identification information was checked against the database to determine  whether  there  was  a  “match.”
For each Claimant  that  Gilardi  was  unable  to  “match”  against  the  arrest  data  in  the   Gilardi compiled database, Gilardi has sent the Proof of Claim Forms to Class Counsel for the purposes of conducting a broader review of litigation-related materials to determine whether government records of the Claimant’s  arrest  can  be  located.  Id. ¶15; Messineo Decl. ¶14 (Exhibit 5).
Class Counsel has placed all documents and spreadsheets or printouts that were produced in the course of litigation into a computer-based document management system. These materials have been processed through Optical Character Recognition (OCR) processing, with each word (including all name and address references) indexed within a searchable database. For each Claimant  whose  name  was  not  initially  “matched”  against  the  Gilardi-compiled database, Class Counsel has searched the database encompassing all materials produced in discovery using the first name and last name of the Claimant. Searches also included partial name searches, using wildcards and partial names, in order to determine whether records could be found evidencing the arrest of the Claimant. This process has returned, for example, arrest documentation for persons whose names were misspelled in the formal arrest data printouts and, therefore, not initially  or  exactly  “matched”  in  the  Gilardi  database.  Messineo Decl. ¶15 (Exhibit 5).
For those Claimants  who  are  not  initially  “matched”  against  the  Gilardi-compiled database, Class Counsel has conducted a name and records search through records at the D.C. Superior Court, Criminal Division, to ascertain if related court records exist or confirm class membership. Cozzi Decl. ¶15 (Exhibit 3); Messineo Decl. ¶16 (Exhibit 5).
10

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 13 of 42
These efforts of Class Counsel have resulted in the location of government or court records for a significant portion of the initially unmatched claimants that either confirmed or precluded the  Claimant’s  eligibility. Cozzi Decl. ¶15 (Exhibit 3); Messineo Decl. ¶22 (Exhibit 5).
For those Claimants who were unmatched, they were sent a letter requesting they provide any additional information or documentation of their arrest. Cozzi Decl. ¶15 (Exhibit 3). Each “unmatched”  Claimant  was also provided information about procedures for qualifying through the submission of sworn affidavits. Id. ¶17. The Settlement Agreement, for example, provides that Claimants can establish eligibility through alternate non-records based means including through submission of affidavits from two Class Members (whose eligibility was manifest in government records) who attest that the Claimant was a Class Member.
Having monitored the administration process actively and closely, Class Counsel attests and submits that the eligibility determination and claims process has been handled conscientiously and carefully by Gilardi. Messineo Decl. ¶4 (Exhibit 5).
C. The Settlement Merits Final Approval of this Court Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court “may  approve  [the  proposed  settlement]  only  after  a   hearing and on finding  that  it  is  fair,  reasonable,  and  adequate,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), and that it  “is  not  the  product  of  collusion  between  the  parties.”  Thomas v. Albright, 139 F.3d 227, 231 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Approval of a proposed class action settlement lies within the sound discretion of the District Court. In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 305 F. Supp. 2d 100, 103 (D.D.C. 2004). “Furthermore,  there  is  a  long-standing judicial attitude favoring class action settlements, and  the  court’s  ‘discretion is constrained  by  the  “principle of preference” favoring and encouraging settlement  in  appropriate  cases.’” Radosti v. Envision, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
11

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 14 of 42
56373, at *25 (D.D.C. June 8, 2010) (citing In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 305 F. Supp. 2d at 103); Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82, 103 (D.D.C. 1999); Mayfield v. Barr, 985 F.2d 1090, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Courts in this Circuit have considered the following factors, among others: (1) whether the  settlement  is  the  result  of  arm’s-length negotiations; (2) the terms of the settlement in relation to  the  strength  of  plaintiffs’  case;;  (3)  the  status  of  the  litigation  at  the  time  of  the  settlement;;  (4)   the reaction of the class; and (5) the opinion of experienced counsel. In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 305 F. Supp. 2d 100, 103 (D.D.C. 2004) (collecting cases).
Arm’s-Length Negotiations and the Opinion of Experienced Counsel “A  presumption  of  fairness,  adequacy,  and  reasonableness  may  attach  to  a  class   settlement  reached  in  arm’s-length negotiations between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful  discovery.”  In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 305 F. Supp. 2d 100, 104 (D.D.C. 2004). There is ample evidence, as reflected in the record of almost eight years of litigation and the 100+ page docket sheet, and the substance of the proposed settlement, that the litigation and negotiated resolution  of  the  litigation  are  at  arm’s  length. Counsel  for  the  respective  parties  jointly  submit  that  the  litigation  including  “[d]iscovery,   which has extended over a period of years, has been voluminous, protracted, contentious and the subject  of  many  contested  motions.”  See Joint Motion for Prel. App., Supporting Memo. at 27 (Dkt. No. 595-1) (Exhibit 1). Multiple attempts at settlement, including with the assistance of well experienced and talented mediators, have failed. On October 5, 2006, this Court referred the case to mediation and stayed proceedings. (Dkt. No. 294). Two experienced mediators, George Cohen and Richard Hotvedt, were appointed through the mediation program run by the U.S. Court of Appeals,
12

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 15 of 42
District of Columbia Circuit. Intense efforts, involving repeated meetings and communications were undertaken. The three-month mediation period, which had been extended to allow diligent efforts to continue and which ended on January 9, 2007, resulted in failure. In their joint status report to the Court, counsel for the parties represented that they would continue in the following months (even after the 3 month stay for mediation talks had terminated) to try and reach agreement. (Dkt. No. 297, Post-Mediation Joint Status Report). Those efforts failed.
In January, 2008, the Court proposed the parties enter into mediation with a private mediator. On January 30, 2008, the Court ordered the new round of mediation, and stayed proceedings. On April  30,  2008,  the  parties’  agreed-upon mediator, the Honorable Richard A. Levie (Ret.) informed the Court that the process had ended unsuccessfully. The mediation itself, and  issues  over  who  would  be  responsible  for  the  mediator’s  fees,  became  the  subject  of litigation and motions practice. (Dkt. Nos. 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 417, 418, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426).
Throughout this process, and the litigation, the Court has repeatedly offered the parties its resources and all necessary periods of time or accommodations to fully explore settlement. This Court did not allow the repeated failures at negotiated resolution to be an excuse for not exhausting all possibilities.
At the July 29, 2009 motions hearing, the Court urged the District of Columbia that this case should be settled and specifically urged the involvement of officials at the top level of government.
You  know  what,  this  case  should  be  settled.  That’s  what  should  happen.  This  case   should be settled as soon as it possibly can to spare the citizens of the District of Columbia additional expenses, additional embarassment and bring some finality to   this   case.   That’s   what   should   happen. . . . This case has been crying out for settlement for a long time.
13

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 16 of 42
Transcript of July 29, 2009 Motion Hearing before the Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, gen’ly  at 14:19 – 16:6; Id. at 33:19 – 23 (similar exhortation).
The  Court  directed  the  involvement  of  Attorney  General  Peter  J.  Nickles,  “the  man  at  the   top,”  in  the  litigation.  Id. 28:24 – 29:4. Mr. Nickles, in filings and oral representations, represented  to  the  Court  that  his  “primary  objective  is  to  see  if  I  can  settle  these  cases.”   Transcript of September 29, 2009 Status Hearing Before the Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan at 33:23 – 24.
Mr. Nickles, on behalf of the District, and Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, on behalf of the Barham class, engaged in a series of meetings to explore settlement possibilities. Through these negotiations this agreement has been forged.
The opinion of experienced counsel  “should be afforded substantial consideration by a court  in  evaluating  the  reasonableness  of  a  proposed  settlement.”  Cohen v. Chilcott, 522 F. Supp. 2d 105, 121 (D.D.C. 2007).
Counsels  for  the  respective  parties  have  jointly  submitted  that  “The  terms  that  have been reached are, indeed, historic. They are substantial for plaintiffs and are a fair deal for the District.”  See Joint Motion for Prel. App., Supporting Memo. at 34 (Dkt. No. 595-1) (Exhibit 1); Id. (respective  counsels  jointly  submit  that  “The  Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate, in the best interests of the class as a whole, and in satisfaction of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due  process  requirements.”); Messineo Decl. ¶2 (Exhibit 5).
The Terms of the Settlement Are Fair, Adequate and Reasonable The monetary relief in this settlement is substantial. Also, each Class Member will have his or her arrest records expunged and the arrest declared null and void.
14

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 17 of 42

The most truly unique and broadly-reaching consequence of this litigation and related work,  however,  is  the  change  in  the  protections  for  First  Amendment  activities  in  the  Nation’s   Capital.
Monetary Recovery Each participating class member will receive approximately $16,000 in compensation. Messineo Decl. ¶18 (Exhibit 5). This is over two-and-a-half times the per-claimant amount that was recovered by absent class members in Burgin v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 032005 (EGS) (Burgin Dkt No. 65, final approval order).1 The Burgin arrestees were arrested on the same day as the Barham arrestees and the majority merged together for the purposes of the confinement. In other words, as a class, the Burgin arrestees from Vermont and K suffered identical injuries and identical conditions of confinement as the Barham arrestees. The Burgin class member recovery of no more than $6,000 was deemed fair, reasonable and adequate for the same injuries as experienced by the Barham class members. The monetary award framework in Barham is structured identically to the framework in the class action of Becker v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 01-0811 (PLF) (JMF), which was negotiated by the same attorneys in advance of the agreement that was reached in Barham. The Honorable Paul L. Friedman has granted final approval of that settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate. (Becker Dkt. No. 362, Order Granting Joint Motion for Final Approval). The

1

The settlement of claims in Burgin v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 03-02005 (EGS) (Burgin Dkt.

No. 65) (final approval order) established a fund of $720,000 to be divided on an equal basis between claimants. See

also Consent Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Judgment and Distribution, Notice to Class, Fairness

Hearing, and Schedule, Burgin v. District of Columbia (Burgin Dkt. No. 60) at 4. The Burgin counsel estimated

there to be between 158 to 190 class members. At the time of the motion for preliminary approval, the Burgin

counsel projected the participation of 100 claimants, which would have led to a recovery of $7,200 each. Id. at 6.

The Court Docket reflects there to have been 120 claimant expungement orders entered under seal on August 17,

2007, from which the undersigned infers there to have been no less than 120 claimants (it is unclear whether the 16

class representatives are in addition to the figure of 120). Accordingly, in Burgin, the recovery per claimant was no

more than $6,000, which was deemed fair, adequate and sufficient for the identical injury as experienced by Barham

class members. See also Id. at 7 (Burgin counsel  preliminarily  projected  “each  Class  Member  who  timely  submits  a  

claim  [will  receive]  an  amount  ranging  from  about  $3,500  to  about  $7,000”).

15

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 18 of 42
Barham absent class members will each receive approximately $16,000 (as compared to the $18,000 for each Becker absent class member) due to the astoundingly high class participation rate of approximately 85% of the Barham class members. See, e.g., June 30, 1010 Transcript of Fairness Hearing before the Honorable Paul L. Friedman (Exhibit 2) (observing that the 70% participation  rate  in  Becker  is  “a  huge  response  rate”).
The Settlement Agreement provides that the payments to class members are to be spread over two municipal fiscal years. Accordingly the first payment, which will be no less than sixty percent of that due to each class member, is to be funded by the end of September 2010. The remainder is to be funded by September 1, 2011.
Class Representatives shall share equally in a fund that will provide each $50,000 in compensation for their services on behalf of the class. This has been lengthy and hard fought litigation, and the class representatives have engaged in extensive and repeated discovery, returned to the area for deposition, and been available and have actively participated in the advance of this lengthy litigation and negotiations. The amount of $50,000 is commensurate with the most recent recoveries by individuals who have actively brought and advanced claims as individuals for the same injuries. Class counsel views it as imperative that Class Representatives receive compensation that is at least commensurate with that which they would likely have recovered if they had advanced claims actively as individual plaintiffs over these past years. In the absence of such commensurate recovery, there would be a severe disincentive for persons to serve as class representatives, a role which entails the same or greater activity as an individual plaintiff along with the additional fiduciary responsibilities and obligations in service to the class as a whole. Class Counsel represents that the Class Representatives have each served as stalwart
16

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 19 of 42

advocates on behalf of the class as a whole and have been essential to securing the exceptional results for the benefit of the class overall.
The award of attorneys’ fees, between approximately twenty-six percent (26%) to twenty-nine percent (29%) as a percentage of the total settlement resolution,2 is well within the range of reasonable fees in percentage of the fund cases. See Joint Motion for Prel. App., Supporting Memo. at 23 – 26 (Dkt. No. 595-1) (Exhibit 1) (collecting cases).
The fees were negotiated and determined separately from, and after the negotiation of the amount of monetary recovery to the Claimants. The attorneys’ fees are borne separately by the District  and  do  not  decrease  the  amount  of  Claimants’  Funds  awarded or available. Id. at 23. It is undisputed, as well as manifest by the record, that this case was litigated for over seven years, involved complex and factually detailed issues, resulted in multiple dispositive motion briefings,3 which led to the interlocutory appeals of the denial of qualified immunity by Peter

2

The  Settlement  Agreement  provides  an  award  of  $2,462,333  to  Class  Counsel  as  attorneys’  fees  and  costs.

The Class Settlement Fund, i.e., the gross settlement fund inclusive of administrative costs  and  attorneys’  

fees is $8,251,333 plus unspecified additional monies as may be paid from the D.C. Judgment and Settlement Fund

as needed to create a new document management system and to train staff.

If one excludes completely consideration of the additional monies to create and implement the document

management  system,  the  attorneys’  fees  and  costs  are  29%  of  the  total  settlement  value  ($8,251,333  divided  by  

$2,462,333).

If one estimates the costs for procurement, implementation, training and operation of the new document

management  system  to  be  $1  million,  the  attorneys’  fees  and  costs  are  26%  of  the  total  settlement  value  ($9,251,333  

divided by $2,462,333).

3

See Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, filed by Charles Ramsey, et al. (Dkt.

No.  67);;  Motion  to  Dismiss  Portions  of  the  Complaint,  filed  by  District  of  Columbia  (Dkt.  No.  69);;  Plaintiffs’  

Memorandum  in  Opposition  to  Motion  to  Dismiss  Portions  of  Complaint  (Dkt.  No.  77);;  Plaintiffs’  Memorandum  in  

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment filed by Chief Ramsey and Mayor

Williams (Dkt. No. 76) (including 37 exhibits); Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment filed

by Peter J. Newsham (Dkt. No. 89); Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed by Newsham

(Dkt. No. 95); Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Grounds of Qualified Immunity filed by Charles Ramsey

and Anthony Williams (Dkt. No. 99, 102); Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or in the

Alternative for Summary Judgment filed by Ramsey and Williams (Dkt. No. 103); Plaintiffs’ Supplemental

Memorandum Regarding Applicability of Groh v. Ramirez to the Motions to Dismiss Based on Qualified Immunity

(Dkt. No. 112); Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum Of Materials Received That Relate to Qualified Immunity

Defenses (Dkt. No. 118); Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Applicability of International Action

Center v. United States, Including Submission of Supplementary Material Related to Qualified Immunity (Dkt. No.

126); Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Common Law Claims by Anthony Williams (Dkt. No.

228); Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by the District of

Columbia (Dkt. No. 257).

17

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 20 of 42
Newsham and Charles Ramsey to the U.S. Court of Appeals. See Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C. 2006). The Class Plaintiffs filed two motions for preliminary injunctions, and eventually secured the relief sought in each.4 Discovery, which has extended over a period of years, has been voluminous,5 protracted, contentious and the subject of many contested motions.6
Ultimately, the loss and destruction of evidence itself became the subject of extensive investigation, motions to compel, briefings, and voluminous motions for sanctions.7

4

Motion for Preliminary Injunction Enjoining the District of Columbia from Arresting or Prosecuting

Persons for Parading without a Permit (Dkt. No. 144); Motion for Preliminary Injunction Mandating That the

Defendants Expunge the Arrest Records of Plaintiffs, and grant additional related relief (Dkt. No. 145).

5

Over 40,000 documents have been produced. There have been well in excess of 100 hours of radio runs

produced, often multiple versions (not copies) encompassing the same periods of time. Class Counsel estimates it

required an average of 5 hours to closely review one hour of recorded radio communication, due to the poor quality,

the fading in and out of transmissions, the fact that overlapping or sequential transmissions can be initiated by any

source and (unlike a deposition) not sources easily identifiable or even known in advance, etc. There is a substantial

volume of video, as well. The extremely close examination of the radio runs conducted by Barham plaintiffs’  

counsel, which resulted in the identification of critical - - but latent and non-immediately apparent - - deficiencies or

loss of data was exceedingly time consuming. There have, to date, been over 120 depositions in this case. Counsel

has also reviewed the 5,000+ pages of documents released by the D.C. Council upon conclusion of its investigation,

reviewed the additional 11 depositions taken by the Council in executive session, as well as the multiple days of

related public hearings, including those occurring on October 24, 2002, October 24, 2003, December 17 - 18, 2003

and October 7, 2004.

6

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Against Peter Newsham (Dkt. Nos. 248, 249, 251); Plaintiffs’ Memorandum

in Opposition to Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Disqualify the Office of the Attorney

General, filed in Chang case (Dkt. No. 258); Motion for Protective Order filed by District of Columbia (Dkt. No.

263); Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Properly Prepared Rule 30(b)(6) Deponent to Testify With the

Collective Knowledge of the District of Columbia Municipality (Dkt. Nos. 264, 273, 300); Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift

Stay of Discovery (Dkt. No. 311); Motion by District of Columbia and Individual Defendants to Propound

Discovery to the Class Members (Dkt. No. 326); Motion to Compel the Production of Running Resumes and

Recorded Police Channel Communications (Dkt. No. 338, 339); Plaintiffs’ Opposition to District of Columbia’s

Motion for Discovery Against Class Members (Dkt. No. 341); Motion for Protective Order by District of Columbia

(Dkt. No. 354), and Plaintiffs’ Opposition thereto (Dkt. No. 362); Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Field

Arrest Forms and Related Arrest Records from the District of Columbia (Dkt. No. 363); Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

Motion to Compel filed by District of Columbia against Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 380); Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay of

Proceedings (Dkt. No. 427, 429, 431, 432, 434).

7

Motion to Compel the Production of Running Resumes and Recorded Police Channel Communications

(Dkt. No. 338, 339); Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Field Arrest Forms and Related Arrest Records

from the District of Columbia (Dkt. No. 363); Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by the District

of Columbia (Dkt. No. 439, 447, 448, 449, 450, 452, 459, 460, 462, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 481, 482); Barham

Plaintiffs’ Response to the Court’s Request for a Proposal for Further Discovery in Light of the Sanctionable

Conduct by the District of Columbia (Dkt. No. 502); Barham Class’ Response to the Representations of Kathy

Patterson as They Pertain to the Loss and Destruction of the J.O.C.C. Running Resume Database (Dkt. No. 514);

The Barham Class’ Response to the Declaration of Attorney General Peter J. Nickles (Dkt. No. 515); The Barham

Class’ Renewed Motion for Sanctions, and Memorandum in Support, Against the District of Columbia and Against

Charles H. Ramsey (Dkt. No. 520; 522; 524; 534; 538; 539; 540; 544).

18

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 21 of 42
Class Counsel discovered and brought to the fore the issues of evidence loss that became the focus of the Special Master referral (Dkt. No. 608) and the report of the Honorable Judge Stanley Sporkin (Ret.) (Dkt. No. 575). This occurred through Class  Counsel’s  thorough and focused examination of the evidence, including of the many police channels of radio runs, and was facilitated by Class  Counsel’s  familiarity  and expertise with the internal operations of the MPD during mass demonstrations and the evidence obtained in discovery in other protest cases.
In addition, Class Counsel has continued to perform substantial work during the claims process to ensure widespread and targeted dissemination of the Notice of Settlement as well as in undertaking painstaking review of a wide a variety of records, including accessing courthouse criminal records, to assist in ensuring persons who are properly part of the class and entitled to participate in the settlement can be matched. As a result, the participation rate of class members, has reached an extraordinary level of approximately 85%, despite the fact that arrest records are incomplete and outdated, and the class is geographically diverse and not a cohesive singular group.
The attorneys’ fees are reasonable as a percentage of the recovery, measured strictly in monetary terms. The benefit to the class  of  counsels’  services  is  far  greater  than  simply  the   monetary relief as is evidenced by the substantial advancement of key constitutional rights issues and matters of public integrity in this litigation and the securing of meaningful and important equitable relief.
Expungement Relief Class Counsel has, throughout the litigation, sought to secure reforms and equitable relief. By Order dated January 28, 2008, the Court entered an order providing the class the benefit of expungement and annulment relief (Dkt. No. 405). Among other relief set forth in that
19

s

1

a Ce

a

Order,  the  Court  did  declare  that  “The  arrests  of  the  Barham Plaintiffs and the absent class members are hereby declared null and void. Each of the Barham plaintiffs and the individual absent class members is authorized to deny the occurrence of his or her arrest that day without being subject to any penalty of perjury, fraud or other offense premised upon misrepresentation or deception in response to any inquiry, whether posed orally or in writing. These rights accrue to the full benefit of any absent class member regardless of whether an individualized entry of a nullification  order  [see  below]  is  entered.”
With the collection of identification information through the claims process, and in accordance with the proposed Barham Settlement Agreement, each class member will be issued an Order declaring his or her arrest to be null and void. See, Ex. 6, Settlement Agreement at 8.
The Resolution of Claims for Equitable Relief The Barham litigation was conducted to ensure that there would not be a recurrence of the trap-and-arrest tactics and other harmful police practices identified in the complaint. If one  were  to  “flash  back”  to  the  mass demonstrations of 2000 through 2003 under then Chief of Police Charles H. Ramsey, they were characterized by conditions that led to the repeated allegations that the MPD was engaged in a pattern and practice of trapping and detaining protest groups, including in each of the following circumstances:
April 15, 2000, claim of trap and detain mass arrests at protests timed to coincide with the Spring annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. See Becker, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al., Civil Action 01-00811 (PLF)(JMF) (class action with Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) as class counsel).
January 20, 2001, allegedly targeting protestors at the first Inauguration of George W. Bush and engaging in trap and detention tactics. See International Action Center, et al. v. United States, et al., Civil Action No. 01-00072 (GK) (plaintiffs represented by the PCJF attorneys).
Saturday, September 29, 2001, in Murrow Park in front of IMF headquarters. Protestors claim that police lines allegedly appeared suddenly, trapping and detaining hundreds of
20

s

1

a Ce

a

persons without notice.
April 22, 2002, at a march organized to raise awareness about U.S. policies towards Latin America, District and federal police allegedly deployed police lines without warning and encircled, trapped and detained demonstrators.
September 27, 2002, mass arrest at protests timed to coincide with the Fall annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank. Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action 02-02283 (EGS)(JMF) (class action with Partnership for Civil Justice Fund as class counsel).
March 22, 2003, at protests against the invasion of Iraq, marchers were allegedly trapped and detained by police lines suddenly deployed at the front and the rear of the march on a city block in downtown D.C.
The Partnership for Civil Justice filed the class complaint in Barham as the then most
recent  in  a  series  of  lawsuits  it  had  filed  to  challenge  the  “trap-and-arrest”  tactic. They had
already filed the Becker class action in connection with the mass arrest during the April 2000
IMF/World Bank protests. They had filed International Action Center, et al. v. United States, et
al. on behalf of protest groups and individuals in connection with the use of police lines to trap
and surround protestors and others in connection with the January 2001 Presidential
Inauguration. They had sought to raise public and media attention to the issue of police lines
suddenly popping up to trap and surround protests. See, e.g., Petula Dvorak, Police Pop Up to
Keep the Peace; Controversial Tactic Angers Protesters, Wash. Post, Oct. 11, 2001, at B5.
As reflected in the complaint in this class action:
This complaint is the most recent in a series of lawsuits with a shared factual allegation: That the D.C.   Metropolitan   Police   Department’s Civil Disturbance Units maintain and execute unconstitutional tactics to disrupt lawful protest and assembly including specifically the routine use of mobile police lines to interfere with freedom of association, assembly, speech and free movement; and the use of administrative detention, false imprisonment and false arrest tactics in which the CDUs will trap protesters (and others in physical proximity) on all sides, seize, detain and arrest those trapped/seized in the absence of probable cause. First Amended Complaint at 3, ¶¶4 – 5 (Dkt. No. 16).

21

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 24 of 42
This Court recognized  and  described  that  “[t]he  heart  of  [plaintiffs’]  ‘trap  and  arrest’   charge  is  that  police  cordoned  off  the  Pershing  Park  area,  essentially  ‘trapping’  the  protestors   within the park, and then initiated a mass arrest without first warning the protestors that they must  disperse  to  avoid  arrest.”  Barham v. Ramsey, 338 F. Supp. 2d 48, 54 (D.D.C. 2004).
The D.C. Circuit described  the  mass  arrest  tactic  as  effecting  or  “making  arrests  based  on   the  plaintiffs’  occupancy  of  a  randomly  selected  zone,  rather  than  participation in unlawful behavior.”  Barham, 434 F.3d at 574. Where the trap-and-arrest tactic led to custodial arrests, arrestees assert that they were held overnight in harsh conditions of confinement, bound wrist-toankle in a contorting and painful position that prevented extension of one’s back, deprived access to food and water, and at times to bathroom facilities, and often required to sit painfully handcuffed on buses for hours.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, whose attorneys were class counsel in both the Becker case and the Barham case, made a simultaneous demand for equitable relief in a settlement demand letter dated June 29, 2004 and issued in both the Barham and Becker cases. Because the alleged injuries and challenged tactics experienced in both cases were substantively similar  if  not  identical  in  important  respects,  each  class’  demands  for  equitable  relief  to  prevent   recurrence were advanced in the same correspondence.
Plaintiffs presented not a minimal set of demands, but a comprehensive package of demands that intruded on police operations as plaintiffs deemed necessary to protect constitutional rights in light of alleged police misconduct and disruption to free speech activities.
The expansive set of demands sought to address the following alleged practices: the use of police lines to surround, trap-and-arrest  protestors  and  others;;  arrests  based  on  “demonstrating   without  a  permit”;;  use  of  ineffective  and/or  unlawful protest dispersal orders; the conditions of
22

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 25 of 42
confinement and restraint imposed on persons arrested in protests; the practice of restraining arrestees by using flexcuffs to bind wrist-to-ankle; to place objective limits on the lengthy duration of confinement before release, the effect of which allegedly kept protestors off of the streets and unable to engage in protected activities; to prevent the delivery of misinformation regarding options for release, which plaintiffs assert appeared calculated to prevent protestors from challenging the legality of their arrests by telling persons  that  unless  they  chose  to  “post   and  forfeit”  that  they  would  be  jailed  for  days  before  a  Judge  would  see  them.  The  demands  also   sought to impose public record-keeping and report-issuance requirements.
As a consequence of this litigation, and other litigation and factors, the Council of the District of Columbia enacted the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004.
The legislative history of this Act reflects that one of the expressly stated legislative purposes was to eliminate the need for equitable relief to issue from this Court and to enact into statutory law the reasonable equitable demands of plaintiffs to this litigation.
Barham class counsel Mara Verheyden-Hilliard testified at the public hearing on the legislation. Upon completion of Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard’s  testimony,  Judiciary  Committee   Chairperson Kathy Patterson stated, and asked, as follows:
One of the things that we had looked at, in doing this legislation, was trying to bring an end to the [protest] lawsuits here, from the standpoint of taking away all the injunctive relief sought, or taking away the need for injunctive relief. Let me just ask you . . . if this legislation as proposed today were the law of the District of Columbia tomorrow, would there still be injunctive relief needed, that you needed to seek, in your view? Media Exhibit A, Committee Chair Kathy Patterson, Council of the District of Columbia, Committee on the Judiciary, Public Hearing, Bill 15-968, "First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004," (October 7, 2004) (emphasis added). Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard  responded  with  a  qualified  “Yes,”  acknowledging  the  breadth  of   the  Council’s  proposals  as  well  as  areas  for  modification  and  improvement.    Id.
23

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 26 of 42

The  “First  Amendment  Rights  and  Police  Standards  Act  of  2004”  (Exhibit 7) became

effective law on April 13, 2005. During the period from April, 2005 through September, 2010,

there has been no recurrence of the use of police lines to engage in the mass trap-and-arrest of

protestors.

In granting final approval to the Becker class action, Judge Friedman acknowledged that

the substantial reforms of the FARPSA were the  “direct  result”  of  the  class  action  litigation.  June  

30, 2010, Transcript of Fairness Hearing Before the Honorable Paul L. Friedman, at 33 – 34

(Exhibit 2).

A comparison of the comprehensive package of equitable relief demanded by the Barham

plaintiffs in litigation, to that enacted by the Council is reflected in the following table:

Equitable Demands by Barham Class (as reflected in June, 2004 demand letter) Restrictions on Use of Police lines.
Restrictions on Dispersal or Terminations of Demonstration Activity

Statutory Enactment Under the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004 (Ex. 7) Sec.  108,  “Use  of  police  lines,”  with  identified   exceptions, generally prohibits police from “using  a  police  line to encircle, or substantially encircle,  a  demonstration” Sec.  107(d),  “The  MPD  shall  not  issue  a   general order to disperse to participants in a First  Amendment  assembly  except”  under   three exceptional and defined circumstances. Establishes  that  “[a]n  order  to  disperse  or  arrest   assembly participants shall not be based solely on the fact that a plan has not been approved for  assembly”  or  lacks  a  permit.

24

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 27 of 42

Equitable Demands by Barham Class (as reflected in June, 2004 demand letter)
No Arrests for Parading or Demonstrating Without a Permit.

Statutory Enactment Under the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004 (Ex. 7) Sec.  105(a),  declares  “it  shall  not  be  an  offense   to assemble or parade on a District street, sidewalks, or other public way, or in a District park,  without  having  provided  notice”  or   receiving a permit8 or an approved plan from the municipality.

Prohibition of Wrist-to-Ankle  “Hogtying”  or   Methods of Restraint Causing Inhumane Stress and Duress
Limitations on Period of Detention and Arrest
Provision of Food and Water to Arrestees

Sec. 142, modifies the existing regulations pertaining to parade permits to explicitly exclude from its scope protests or First Amendment assemblies. Sec.  111,  “Use  of  handcuffs,  plastic  cuffs,  or   other physical restraints on persons arrested in connection with a First Amendment assembly,”  provides  that  “no  such  person  shall   be restrained by connecting his or her wrist to his or her ankle, and no such person shall be restrained in any other manner that forces the person to remain in a physically painful position.” Sec.  112,  “Prompt  release  of  persons  arrested   in connection with a First Amendment assembly,”  establishes  a  standard  that  persons   eligible for release be released within 4 hours from  the  time  of  arrests  and  requires  “that  an   officer holding a supervisory rank document and explain any instance in which a person arrested in connection with a First Amendment assembly who opts for release pursuant to any lawful release option or who is not charged with any offense is not released within 4 hours from  the  time  of  arrest.” Sec. 112, For persons not released within a reasonable period of time, requires provision of “food  appropriate  to  the  person’s  health.”

8

The Act struck from the D.C. Code and/or ceased the use of statutory references to demonstration

“permits,”  in  an  effort  to  convey  that  prior  permit  or  permission  is  not a requirement of law to engage in street

protest.

25

s

1

a Ce

a

Equitable Demands by Barham Class (as reflected in June, 2004 demand letter)
Written Statement of Rights to Release

Statutory Enactment Under the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004 (Ex. 7) Sec.  113,  “Notice  to  persons  arrested  in   connection with a First Amendment assembly of  their  release  options,” requires written notice clearly indicating the availability and alternatives  for  “obtaining  a  prompt  release,”   which is required to be issued in English and Spanish and offered in any other languages as is reasonable to ensure notice for persons who are limited in English proficiency.

Expungement of all Arrest Records in Connection with the Class Action Mass Arrests
Record-Keeping Obligations

Sec. 302, established detailed requirements for the content of such written notice. Not addressed in the Act. Expungement relief is secured through the class action litigations and settlements. Sec. 112, requires the Chief to issue an annual public report addressing specific matters related to arrest and prompt release of persons in connection with First Amendment assemblies.

Addressing other issues raised in various court cases, including other PCJF lawsuits, and
in  the  public  hearings  regarding  police  conduct,  the  “First  Amendment  Rights  and  Police  
Standards  Act  of  2004,”  also:
Requires that officers assigned to First Amendment assemblies are equipped with easily visible  or  “enhanced”  badge  or  name  identification  that  remains  visible  and  allows   identification even if officers are wearing riot gear. See Ex. 7, Sec. 109, Sec. 321.
Requires specific arrest documentation to be completed at a time reasonably contemporaneous with arrest. Id. Sec. 110.
Requires, in the limited circumstances where dispersal of a protest may be authorized under law, that the MPD shall issue one or more audible orders to those assembled using an amplification system or device, and shall provide persons with an adequate time to disperse and with a clear and safe route for dispersal. Id. Sec. 107.
Prohibits the deployment of officers in riot gear to First Amendment assemblies, except in limited circumstances where there is a danger of violence and, further, requires the commander at the scene to issue a written report to the Chief which is to be made
26

s

1

a Ce

a

available to the public following any deployment of officers in riot gear. Id. Sec. 116.
Restricts and further regulates any use of chemical irritants, and requires written report issuance whenever such weapons are used. Id. Sec. 116.
Removes  reference  and  use  of  the  term  “permits”  in  connection  with  protests,   establishing a policy that authorizes protest without prior notice to the police. Id. Sec. 106.
Allows demonstration-related merchandise to be vended within a protest area without a Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs vending permit or license. Id. Sec. 105(h).
Restricts police from interfering with the use of stands or structure ancillary to protest activity. Id. Sec. 105(g).
Prohibits the imposition of user fees upon persons or groups organizing First Amendment assemblies or demonstrations. Id. Sec. 105(e).
Affirms that resolution  of  a  criminal  charge  through  the  “post-and-forfeit”  procedure   “shall  not  be  equated  to  a  criminal  conviction”  and  cannot  be  relied  upon  by  any  D.C.   court or agency to impose any sanction, penalty, enhanced sentence or civil disability. Id. Sec. 302.
The  “First  Amendment  Rights  and  Police  Standards  Act  of  2004”  also  addresses  issues  
raised by student and professional journalists who cover protests. See Ex. 7,  Sec.  114,  “Police-
media  relations.”  The  Act  requires  the  issuance  of  new  regulations  to  grant enhanced privileges
of access to journalists. Id. The Act mandates that media not be denied the access that is
available to members of the general public and be granted additional physical access to areas
closed to the general public in order to assist their ability to report on the event. Id.; See also 24
D.C.M.R. § 2104 (regulations, as promulgated, which among other things establish the policy of
the  MPD  is  “that  media  representatives  shall  have  maximum  access  to  First  Amendment  
assemblies. . . consistent  with  maintaining  public  safety.  .  .  .”).
The  relief  in  the  “First  Amendment  Rights  and  Police  Standards  Act  of  2004”  is  not  
subject to police modification. It is not regulation or policy or procedure. It is statutory law.
27

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 30 of 42
Unlike MPD policies, which may be overridden within the authority of the Police Chief, statutory law binds the Department, including the Chief. It does not expire after three years, or at any time.
The relief in the FARPSA is tactically proscriptive, restricting police conduct within specific and detailed parameters in a manner the judicial branch is unlikely to itself order. It is within the authority and discretion of the D.C. Council to so proscribe. The Courts, however, have been historically disinclined to exercise their authority upon police operations in the manner which the statutory prohibitions and reforms do. In connection with the protest violations during the Vietnam-war era, the D.C. Circuit reversed the ruling of the U.S. District Court which had ordered equitable relief consisting of a directive that the MPD rewrite its policy manual to take  into  account  violations  reflected  in  the  Court’s  Findings  of  Fact.  The  lower court had not been tactically proscriptive,  but  had  ordered  that  the  “MPD  will  be  required  to  formulate  a   comprehensive, written plan (preferably in the form of a manual or handbook) which clearly states the policies and procedures  to  be  followed  by  the  department  in  mass  demonstrations.”   Wash. Mobilization Comm. v. Cullinane, 400 F. Supp. 186, 217 (D.D.C. 1975). The D.C. Circuit reversed that order, holding such equitable relief to constitute “an  unacceptable  ‘limitation  on  the   department’s  latitude  in  the  dispatch  of  its  own  internal  affairs.’”  Wash. Mobilization Comm. v. Cullinane, 566 F.2d 107, 123 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (quoting Rizzo v. Good, 423 U.S. 362, 379 (1976)).
With respect to enforceability, the Act itself provides that it may be used by plaintiffs in their  private  causes  of  action  in  litigation.  Section  117,  “Construction,”  provides  that   “[p]rovisions  of this title are intended to protect persons who are exercising First Amendment rights in the District of Columbia, and the standards for police conduct set forth in this title may
28

s

1

a Ce

a

be relied upon by such persons in any action alleging violations of statutory or common law rights.”  Ex.  7, Sec. 117.
The  Act  contained  a  section  that  generally  required  “all  relevant  MPD  personnel”  to  be   properly  trained  in  the  “handling  of,  and  response  to,  First  Amendment  assemblies”  including   “instruction  on  the  provisions  of  this [Act], and the regulations  issued  hereunder.”  Ex.  7, Sec. 115.
However, class counsel had received multiple reports from persons seeking to engage in protest activity about encounters with police officials who, notwithstanding this general training requirement, allegedly gave them misinformation or allegedly simply did not know the fundamental details established by the Act. Accordingly, recognizing this as an area of substantive  deficiency,  plaintiffs’  counsel  imposed through the Becker settlement terms – which were negotiated just prior to the Barham proposed settlement - a more specific regimen of training that is sufficiently specific to remedy these circumstances. See Settlement Agreement in Becker, attached hereto as Exhibit 8; See also, July 15, 2010 Order (Becker Docket No. 362) (granting final approval to Becker Settlement Agreement).
Supplementing  and  extending  the  Act’s  training  requirements,  in  the  class  action   settlement reached in Becker v. District of Columbia, the class has sought, and the District has agreed  to  mandate,  that  commencing  not  later  than  120  days  following  the  Court’s  final  approval   of settlement:
“[E]ach  District  of  Columbia  Metropolitan  Police  Department  (“MPD”)  officer  will  be   required to take training on the Standard Operating Procedures for Handling First Amendment Assemblies and Mass Demonstrations. The training records for this course will  be  preserved  for  a  minimum  of  three  (3)  years.”  See Ex. 8, Becker Settlement Agreement, at 8. “[T]he  MPD  shall  refer  each  police  officer currently assigned, or assigned in the future, to  responsibilities  encompassing  or  related  to  the  handling  of  First  Amendment  ‘mass  
29

s

1

a Ce

a

demonstration’  activities  to  the  provisions  of  the  First  Amendment  Rights  and  Police   Standards Act of 2004, D.C. Code §§ 5-331.01, et seq. and the implementing rules that are  posted  on  the  MPD’s  intranet  site.”  Id. at 9.
“[T]he  MPD,  shall,  through  the  MPD’s  website,  make  available  to  all  persons  inquiring   regarding demonstration permits or related activities a copy of the statute and the rules implementing  the  statute  and  any  forms  governing  First  Amendment  assembly  plans.”  Id.
The Becker class action settlement also includes terms calculated to address particular
deficiencies that uniquely arise in Washington, D.C., because of the frequent deployment of
officers from multiple and various jurisdictions to work jointly alongside the District of
Columbia MPD in the context of mass demonstrations. Accordingly, the Becker class action
settlement requires that
In all situations in which, through mutual aid agreements or otherwise, the District of Columbia obtains the assistance of outside law enforcement agencies for demonstration related duties, the MPD shall brief outside agency commanders of the  requirements  of  the  MPD’s  Standard Operating Procedures for Handling First Amendment Assemblies and Mass Demonstrations and shall assign an MPD officer to each such outside agency unit. Ex. 8, Becker Settlement Agreement at 9. A number of the Barham plaintiffs, in particular those non-class plaintiffs arrested in the
vicinity of Vermont & K on September 27, 2002, were each charged with the offense of
“parading  without  a  permit”  and  arrested  without  prior  warning  or  notice.  It  had  been  a  priority  
to ensure that this charge, which plaintiffs and Class Counsel have long asserted to be a non-
arrestable civil infraction, no longer be used by police to arrest and jail protestors. The issue was
advanced in the Barham litigation in 2004 in which plaintiffs sought a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction to Enjoin the District of Columbia from Arresting or Prosecuting Persons for Parading
Without a Permit. (Dkt. No. 144). At the hearing on the motion, the District of Columbia
announced that as a matter of policy it would cease the practice of suddenly arresting protestors
for parading without a permit. See Dkt. No. 168 (denying the motion for preliminary injunction
as  moot  in  light  of  District  counsel’s  representations  in  open  court). 30

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 33 of 42
To ensure that MPD officers know that parading without a permit is a non-arrestable
offense, in an earlier (February 2007) settlement of the non-class  Vermont  &  K  plaintiffs’  claims  
in the Barham matter, the following equitable relief was agreed to by the District of Columbia:
The  Metropolitan  Police  Department’s  Mass  Demonstration Handbook and/or its successor publication, in the event of a change of title, shall, within 120 days of the entry of judgment upon these terms provide written notice that parading without a permit, demonstrating without a permit, and participating in a First Amendment assembly without a permit are not arrestable offenses. . . Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment (Dkt. No. 302-1). Excessive use of force claims were not advanced by the plaintiff class in the Pershing
Park litigation. Nevertheless,  as  affects  the  conduct  of  the  Metropolitan  Police  Department’s  
handling of mass demonstrations, the equitable relief that has issued since the time of the
Pershing Park incident addresses what plaintiffs in other demonstration cases have alleged to
have been one cause of use of excessive force by the Metropolitan Police Department during
mass demonstrations.
Plaintiffs alleging police use of excessive force against demonstrators in the Becker case,
as well as in the litigation over the January 2001 Presidential Inaugural Parade, asserted that the
suspension by Chief Ramsey of use of force reporting requirements during mass demonstrations
sent a message to officers that use of force need not be reported, and by logical extension, would
not be investigated or disciplined. The District denies such allegations.
Accordingly, in the resolution of the 2001 Inaugural litigation, in November 2006, the
plaintiffs represented by the Partnership for Civil Justice secured the following relief:
The Metropolitan Police Department’s  Mass  Demonstration  Handbook  and/or  its   successor publication, in the event of a change of title, shall be modified within 120 days to state, in substance, that the requirement that an officer reports use of force, as established in General Order 901.7, shall fully apply in the context of mass demonstration activity where the officer independently – rather than at the direction of a superior officer – determines to apply force and such modification shall be reflected in CDU refresher training as well as the 40-hour [training] course. Where officers utilize force at the direction of a superior officer the
31

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 34 of 42
current provisions of the Mass Demonstration Handbook [regarding use of force reporting] shall apply. See Settlement Agreement between District of Columbia Defendants and all Plaintiffs, Collectively at 3, International Action Center, et al. v. United States, et al., Civil Action No. 0100072 (GK) (International Action Center Dkt. No. 340-1). The alleged particular tactics that were in play and employed by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in April 2000 and September 2002 and which were sought to be challenged through this litigation have now been addressed through settlement terms and legislative action. The legislation combined with nearly a decade of hard-fought litigation and close judicial oversight has worked successfully to protect the right to dissent and to engage in spirited and vigorous protest and free speech in public fora. Class Counsel as well as District of Columbia Counsel are in agreement that, from the April 2005 effective date of the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act to date, there has been no use of these challenged practices. Judicial Declaration of the Unconstitutionality of the Barham Class Arrests The careful consideration and formal rulings of this Court, as affirmed by the D.C. Circuit, have established lasting judicial precedent that stands not only to protect the rights to free speech of protestors in Washington, D.C., but across the nation. These declarations of constitutional rights and standards are, in and of themselves, a substantial form of equitable and declaratory relief that accrue widespread benefit beyond the immediate litigants. This Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit provided a critical and detailed articulation of the standards to be followed by police in the context of mass demonstrations.  “[W]here  a  group  contains  persons  who  have  not  been  violent  or  obstructive,   police may not mass arrest the demonstration as a group without fair warning or notice and the
32

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 35 of 42
opportunity  to  come  into  compliance.”  Barham v. Ramsey, 338 F. Supp.2d at 58. The D.C. Circuit  affirmed  and  adopted  the  standards  articulated  by  this  Court,  ruling  that  only  “when   compelling circumstances are present, the police may be justified in detaining an undifferentiated crowd of protestors, but only after providing a lawful order to disperse followed by a reasonable opportunity  to  comply  with  that  order.”  Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 575.
The judicial articulations of constitutional standards have been relied upon by protestorplaintiffs advancing claims of mass false arrest against police in other jurisdictions and have been cited and relied upon by courts applying these standards to protect constitutional and free speech rights. See, e.g., Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1158 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of qualified immunity to arresting officers in connection with anti-war protest and march in Albuquerque, New Mexico) (citing Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 574); Beal v. City of Chicago, Civil Case No. 04-2039 (N.D. Ill March 30, 2007) at 10, 12 (citing Barham v. Ramsey, 338  F.  Supp.  2d  48,  58  (D.D.C.  2004))  (denying  defendants’  motion  for  summary  judgment  on   false arrest claims in connection with anti-war march and rally at the Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois resulting in mass arrest); Hickey v. City of Seattle, Civil Action No. 00-1672, at 10 (W.D.  Washington,  December  13,  2006)  (“Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C. Cir. 2006) is instructive  here”  in  the  opinion  granting  plaintiffs’  motion  for  summary  judgment  on  the  issue  of   probable cause in connection with December 1, 1999 anti-World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, Washington).
Judicially Enforced Document Management, Retention and Preservation Obligations; Full Funding to Develop and Implement Document Management System
The total monetary commitment the District of Columbia has made through the Settlement Agreement is potentially greater than just the $8,251,333 allocated for the Class
33

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 36 of 42
Settlement Fund and includes an additional commitment of monies to implement a document management system to prevent recurrence of evidence loss/destruction including by creating an audit trail.
The Settlement Agreement provides for funding for the Document Management, Retention, and Preservation Obligations for a period of three years, which may be extended by the District for an additional two one-year periods to ensure continued funding. In other words, funding as needed is established for up to a five-year period to ensure time for implementation and institutionalization.
These funds for this system are over and above the $8,251,333 allocated for the Class Settlement Fund and are authorized to be paid from the D.C. Judgment and Settlement Fund, which is a funding source within the District of Columbia municipal budget that provides fiscal resources to settle claims and lawsuits and pay judgments in most types of civil cases filed against the District of Columbia. It is an uncapped fund, and therefore this element of relief satisfies two important characteristics: it provides full funding for the document management system and does not affect the availability of funds for settlements or judgments regarding other lawsuits against the District.
The District has, in the resolution of other class action lawsuits seeking systemic change, previously funded systems needed to facilitate systemic equitable reforms by specifically providing for such funding in the class action settlement agreement. For example, in the class action resolution of Bynum v. District of Columbia, the agreement provided for three million dollars for prison processing facilities development, the existence of which was needed to prevent future instances of over-detention. Bynum v. District of Columbia, 412 F. Supp. 2d 73
34

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 37 of 42
(D.D.C. 2006). These commitments were properly considered in determining the total valuation of the settlement of claims. Id.
In the Barham resolution, the distinction is that there is no particular dollar amount maximum to the funding of the equitable relief, although the funding is obviously limited by the actual needs of the document management system and the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Within those needs, the parties recognize that the largest financial and technical hurdles will come in the first years of development and implementation of the document management system. There will be significant one-time start-up costs. Technical start-up costs will exist for the development and implementation, from a systems perspective. Other costs, associated with personnel training and the integration of the system into actual case operations, will be significantly greater during initial years of implementation. Once the use and benefits of the system become a part of operations, and personnel are properly trained, then of course the ongoing per-year maintenance costs will not be encumbered by these front-end expenses.
The   parties’   intent   is   to   fully   fund,   through   this   agreement,   the   acquisition,   development and training costs for the Document Management System, which would be expected to be greater in the initial years of implementation than in subsequent periods, and to establish funding for three years, or as may be extended, a period of time believed to be amply sufficient for the use and benefits of the system to be well established. Ex. 6, Settlement Agreement at 17 – 18. The  parties’  intent  is  that,  when  the  Settlement  Agreement  does  eventually  expire,  the   start-up costs will have all been covered within the Agreement, the operating expenses during the initial three- to five-year period will all have been covered, and the expected future financial costs will accordingly be limited to maintenance costs. At that time, the use of the system will be incorporated into certain case management procedures and the benefits will be well established. While budgeting will, of course, be needed to continue use of the system, the Agreement has been structured and funded to make the system long-standing, cost-effective and essential.
35

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 38 of 42
The Settlement Agreement provides for this Court to retain jurisdiction for three years for purposes of enforcement of the Document Management and Retention Requirements in the Agreement. See Ex. 6, Settlement Agreement at 18.
The District has also agreed to the series of requirements set forth below relating to the mandatory indexing, logging and preservation of evidence.
1. Commitment of Funds to Implement New Document Management System The District has agreed to fund, using additional monies from the District of Columbia Judgment and Settlement Fund, a document management protocol or system the function of which is to prevent the recurrence of the destruction of evidence issues that were discovered in the course of litigation. Id. at 13. 2. Indexing and Logging of Evidence Under new policies mandated as terms of the Settlement Agreement, the District will now be required to maintain an index, and to log, any documents, items, things, recorded or electronic/computer/digitized material related to a complaint or litigation hold letter for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests. Id. at 9 – 10. This is relief calculated to enforce indexing of evidence, to create an internal audit trail that would alert the District to any missing records or evidence. Id. at 10. 3. Evidence Preservation For Protest Related Claims Under  the  Agreement,  “the  OAG  shall  issue  policy  statements  mandating  that  upon   written notice of likely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records pertaining to alleged police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests, the OAG shall affirmatively direct in writing and ensure that all documents, records, items, videos or
36

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 39 of 42
computer files relating to the underlying incident be preserved and affirmatively protected from destruction  for  a  period  of  no  less  than  three  (3)  years.”  Id. at 11.
4. Preservation and Indexing of Radio Runs, Command Center Records, and Other Computer Based Recordings or Data Records
Under the Agreement, upon any command or other system activation to assist in the management  of  mass  demonstrations  and  protests,  “all  computer  files,  communications   recordings / radio runs and documents reasonably related to the event shall be indexed and preserved for a period of no less  than  three  (3)  years.”  Id. at 11 – 12.
5. Preservation and Indexing of Photographic or Video Recordings Under  the  Agreement,  “whenever  any  MPD  officer  is  assigned  to  (or  with  the  capability   to) engage in photographic or video recording or surveillance of mass demonstration activity or protests;;  documentation  shall  be  maintained  reflecting  the  officer’s  name,  assignment,  the   equipment and recording media issued; and indexing and logging the return of all media. Upon the return of any media, the officer shall document the dates, times, locations and events recorded and affix such information to the media itself or secure to the container that contains the media.”  Id. at 12. The Agreement is explicit that it does not  authorize  such  surveillance,  but  “is  intended   solely to focus on indexing and record-keeping”  in  the  event  such  media  is  created.  Id. at 12. 6. Office of the Attorney General Required to Provide a Report to the
Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, and to Issue Public Report to the Court, Every Six Months During Enforcement Period At six month intervals, for a period of three years, the District of Columbia is required to submit a report to class counsel at the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund regarding measures taken to perform the above-referenced system development, records indexing and maintenance requirements. The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund will have opportunity for review and
37

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 40 of 42
comment. The District shall be afforded an opportunity to consider these comments, after which the final report will be submitted to the Court and published. The comments of the PCJF are required to be published within or as an attachment to the report. See Id. at 12 – 13.
This is an oversight and reporting function that is intended to assure plaintiffs, the Court, and the public that the Document Management, Retention and Preservation goals of the Settlement Agreement are, in fact, advanced and achieved.
With all of this in consideration, and in consideration of the specific monetary and nonmonetary terms and conditions of the Becker proposed settlement, the parties jointly submit that the claims for equitable relief have been resolved, the terms reached in the resolution of this case are substantial and historic, and clearly satisfy the requirements of constituting a fair, reasonable and adequate settlement of claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Appointment of Special Master To Investigate Loss or Destruction of Evidence The Class and Class Counsel have steadfastly advanced issues pertaining to loss and destruction of evidence throughout these proceedings, including even after a proposed settlement was reached with the District defendants. It was Class Counsel which uncovered deficiencies and filed motions to compel relating to the existence, loss or destruction, of the Joint Operations Command Center running resume and the existence and condition of the recorded police channel communications, each of which were the focus of the investigation commissioned by Attorney General Peter J. Nickles which resulted in the written report of the Hon. Judge Stanley Sporkin (Ret.) (Dkt. No. 576-1). This Court has appointed Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola as Special Master to investigate the circumstances surrounding the issues of evidence loss and destruction. (Dkt. No. 608, Special Master Appointment Order).
38

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 41 of 42
The Status of the Litigation at the Time of the Settlement The settlement occurred after years of thorough discovery, as well as dispositive motions. The parties were well-positioned to evaluate their claims and respective positions. See Meijer, Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Holdings Co. III, Ltd., 565 F. Supp. 2d 49, 57 (D.D.C. 2008) (“In   determining whether a proposed class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, courts consider whether counsel had sufficient information, through adequate discovery, to reasonably assess the risks of litigation vis-à-vis  the  probability  of  success  and  range  of  recovery.”) The Reaction of the Class Reflecting the overwhelmingly positive support by the class of the Settlement, apart from the Chang plaintiffs which are addressed at Dkt. Nos. 624, 625, not a single Class Member, among the hundreds, has  requested  exclusion  or  to  “opt  out”  of  the  Settlement  during  this claims period. The high level of active class member participation of approximately 85% of the class as a whole, and the near-complete absence of objection (setting aside the attorneys for the Chang case) weighs in favor of approval of the settlement. See Thomas v. Albright, 139 F.3d 227, 232 (D.C.  Cir.  1998)  (“[A]  settlement  can  be  fair  even  though  a  significant  portion  of  the  class  and   some  of  the  named  plaintiffs  object  to  it.”);;  Radosti v. Envision, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56373, at *57 (D.D.C. June 8, 2010) (same); In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig. (Lorazepam II),  2003  WL  22037741,  at  *6  (D.D.C.  June  16,  2003)  (the  “existence  of  even  a   relatively  few  objections  certainly  counsels  in  favor  of  approval”). Conclusion For the reasons state herein, the settlement should be approved as a fair, adequate and reasonable resolution of the class claims against the District defendants in this matter.
39

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629 Filed 09/07/10 Page 42 of 42

Respectfully submitted,

PETER J. NICKLES Attorney General for the District of Columbia
GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division
ELLEN A. EFROS [250746] Assistant Deputy Litigation Division
MONIQUE A. PRESSLEY [464432] Senior Assistant Attorney General Equity Section I 441 4th Street, NW, 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-6610 Fax: (202) 741-0424 monique.pressley@dc.gov
SHANA L. FROST [458021] Assistant Attorney General
/s/ Monique A. Pressley MONIQUE A. PRESSLEY Assistant Attorney General Equity Section I
Attorneys for Defendants District of Columbia, Charles H. Ramsey and Terrance W. Gainer

/s/ Carl Messineo, [450033] Mara Verheyden-Hilliard [450031] PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 617 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 232-1180 (202) 747-7747 fax
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: September 7, 2010

40

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629-1 Filed 09/07/10 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES RAMSEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 02-CV-2283 (EGS)(JMF)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement

and Payment Distribution, and for the reasons stated in open court at the Fairness Hearing held

on September 17, 2010, it is this ______ day of __________, 2010, hereby

ORDERED that the motion is granted.

The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate, Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(e)(2).

It is FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

1. Within 45 days of the Final District Court Approval, or by September 30, 2010, whichever comes first, the District of Columbia shall deposit into an escrow account to be administered by the Class Administrator the following amounts:

$850,000 (constituting 100% of the Class Representatives Funds) $2,872,800 (constituting 60% of the maximum Claimant Funds) $1,477,999 (constituting 60% of the Attorneys Fees and Costs Funds)

2. By September 1, 2011, the District of Columbia shall deposit into an escrow account to be administered by the Class Administrator the remainder of the Claimant Funds, specifically, $1,915,200.

1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629-1 Filed 09/07/10 Page 2 of 9
3. By September 1, 2011, the District of Columbia shall deposit into an escrow account to be administered by the Class Administrator the following additional amount: $985,334 (constituting the remaining 40% of the Attorneys Fees and Costs).
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs and the Class Administrator shall petition the Court for an order authorizing the actual release, or disbursement, of funds from the escrow account to recipients.
It is hereby FURTHER ORDERED that, should this order granting final approval of the settlement be overturned, set aside or reversed on appeal or upon review, if any by the United States Supreme Court, then the Administrator shall be required and ordered to return all deposits or payments (with any accumulated interest) less the previously-made $150,000 Notification and Administration Funds payment.
It is further ORDERED that any residual funds remaining in Barham related escrow accounts after the satisfaction of all disbursements, payments and obligations pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, shall be returned and revert to the possession of the District of Columbia.
It is hereby acknowledged by the Court, as reflected in Section VII of the Settlement Agreement, that in entering into this settlement, there is no admission of liability by the District of Columbia nor do plaintiffs suggest or concede a lack of merit to their claims.
Expungement relief has been previously ordered by Court Order dated January 28, 2008 (Dkt. No. 405). In  accordance  with  that  Order,  “The  District  of  Columbia  shall  provide  for  the   expungement of the Barham  Plaintiffs’  arrest  records  and  for  those  of  all  absent  class  members   …  [and]  shall  use  its  best  efforts  to  procure  expungement  of  the  September  27,  2002  arrest   records of any Pershing Park case Plaintiff or absent class member in the possession of the
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629-1 Filed 09/07/10 Page 3 of 9
United States Government (including, but not limited to, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, [or] any  state  or  local  government.”
This Court has previously, by the January 28, 2008 Order, declared the arrests of the Plaintiffs  and  Class  Members  null  and  void  and  has  authorized  each  to  “deny  the  occurrence  of   his or her arrest that day, without being subject to any penalty of perjury, fraud or other offense premised upon misrepresentation or deception in response to any inquiry, whether posed orally or in writing. These rights accrue to the full benefit of any absent class member regardless of whether  an  individualized  entry  of  a  nullification  order  is  entered.”
In accordance also with the January 28, 2008 Order, for each class member, Class Counsel will file with the Clerk of the Court, under seal, a paper copy of a draft order of nullification, and the Court will issue an order that states as follows:
ORDER The arrest of [insert name, date of birth, and social security number] on September 27, 2002, in the District of Columbia is hereby declared null and void. [Mr. or Ms. insert last name] is authorized to deny the occurrence of his or her arrest that day, without being subject to any penalty of perjury, fraud, or other offense premised upon misrepresentation or deception in response to any query, whether posed orally or in writing. So Ordered on this ____ day of __________ [date to be inserted] [signed] EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge
It is hereby FURTHER ORDERED that the following changes to policies and practices be undertaken, as specified in the Settlement Agreement Section  III(B)  (“Changes  to  Policies  and   Practices”):
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629-1 Filed 09/07/10 Page 4 of 9
1. Document Management System and Protocol; Evidence Indexing and Logging Requirements.
Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court), the District of Columbia will develop, maintain and/or implement a document management protocol or system to ensure the preservation of records and documents arising from mass demonstrations and protests, and to be used also in other litigation brought against the District of Columbia as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General, encompassing the Office of the Attorney General and the MPD Office of General Counsel that provides for the following:
i. Maintain an index and log of any documents, items, things, recorded or electronic/computer/digitized material (hereinafter "record(s)") that are directly related to a complaint or litigation hold letter for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General;
ii. The index will assign a unique identifier to each record and, if possible, will be numbered or identified in a continuous or contiguous manner. One of the intents of the parties is to provide an internal "audit trail" that would alert the District to any missing records or evidence.
iii. The indexing for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests (or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General) is intended as an internal control over document management; use of the indexing system described in this section is mandatory for all records received or reviewed in connection with a case for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests (or other
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629-1 Filed 09/07/10 Page 5 of 9
cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General); in the event that, due to the physicality or medium of an item, a copy of the item cannot be maintained or stored within a computer-based document management system, the requirements of above-referenced sub-paragraph (ii) still requires such items to be indexed and logged in an effective manner, i.e. in a central hard copy log or a dedicated spreadsheet; and the fact that a record is indexed is not intended to establish that the record is discoverable, relevant or admissible; iv. Communications that are protected by attorney-client privilege or protected as work product are not required or intended to be subject to this particular indexing, unless so desired by the District of Columbia in its own discretion; v. Records shall be indexed in the indexing system described and required by this section as soon as possible upon collection or review. 2. "Litigation Hold" Procedures and Practices to Prevent Loss or Destruction of Evidence. Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of Settlement of this matter upon these terms, the OAG shall issue policy statements mandating that upon written notice of likely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records pertaining to alleged police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests, the OAG shall affirmatively direct in writing and ensure that all documents, records, items, videos or computer files relating to the underlying incident be preserved and affirmatively protected from destruction for a period of no less than three (3) years. "Notice of likely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records" is any notification in writing to the Chief of Police, or the Mayor; and/or service upon the Office of the Attorney General of a civil action complaint for matters alleging police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests. The contractual
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629-1 Filed 09/07/10 Page 6 of 9
definition used herein of "notice of likely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records" is not intended to alter the meaning of those terms of art as may be used by established reported case law precedent in the District of Columbia.
3. Preservation and Indexing of Command Center and Communications Systems Records and Data.
Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court), the MPD shall issue policy statements or general orders mandating that whenever a system is activated to assist in the management of mass demonstrations and protests or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General, all computer files, communications recordings / radio runs and documents reasonably related to the event shall be preserved and indexed for a period of no less than three (3) years.
4. Procedures and Practices to Index and Log Photographic or Video or other Recorded Evidence.
Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court), whenever any MPD officer is assigned to (or with the capability to) engage in photographic or video recording or surveillance of mass demonstration activity or protests; documentation shall be maintained reflecting the officer's name, assignment, the equipment and recording media issued; and indexing and logging the return of all media. Upon the return of any media, the officer shall document the dates, times, locations and events recorded and affix such information to the media itself or secure to the container that contains the media. This provision is intended solely to focus on indexing and record-keeping; it does not authorize under what circumstances such surveillance or recordings
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629-1 Filed 09/07/10 Page 7 of 9
may occur. This provision is not intended to supplant or supersede orders or rules pertaining to the use of closed circuit television and cataloging requirements set forth in such applicable orders or rules.
5. Communications with Class Counsel to Ensure Compliance. The District of Columbia, through the Office of Attorney General, shall engage in communications with and respond to reasonable inquiries from class counsel, as to the status and/or completion of the obligations set forth in the section, "Changes to Policies and Practices." 6. Mandatory Reporting Obligations. At six month intervals during the three year period of required implementation, the District of Columbia shall issue a report regarding measures taken to perform the requirements of Settlement Agreement section (III)(B), "Changes to Policies and Practices." Class Counsel shall be provided an advance copy of the report and provided opportunity to comment. The District shall consider the comments by Class Counsel. The comments or response of Class Counsel, if any, shall be incorporated as an included attachment or exhibit and published in the final report. The reports shall be transmitted to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, as well as made publicly available. Additionally, the District shall consult and communicate with Class Counsel during the system acquisition or procurement process. 7. Funding for Development and Operation of Document Management System. The District of Columbia shall use either the class/claimant funds that revert back to the District of Columbia under the settlement, if any, or the Settlement and Judgment Fund to pay the costs of the development and operation of the document management system. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this case as set forth in the following provisions:
7

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629-1 Filed 09/07/10 Page 8 of 9
i. Enforcement of Right of Expungement and for Monetary Payments. The United States District Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the expungement and monetary payment terms for a period of three years from the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court).
ii. Enforcement of Document Management and Retention Requirements. a. The Document Management and Retention Requirements are those provisions in section (III)(B) ("Changes to Policies and Practices") of the Settlement Agreement. b. The District agrees to perform the requirements of the Document Management and Retention Requirements for a period of no less than three years from the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court). c. The Document Management and Retention Requirements may be extended for no more than two one year periods upon motion by the District of Columbia if the District of Columbia believes that such an extension is required to bring the defendants into compliance with the requirements of the settlement. The parties' intent is to fully fund, through the Settlement Agreement, the acquisition, development and training costs for the Document Management System, which would be expected to be greater in the initial years of implementation than in subsequent periods, and to establish funding
8

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 629-1 Filed 09/07/10 Page 9 of 9
for three years, or as may be extended, a period of time believed to be amply sufficient for the use and benefits of the system to be well established. d. The United States District Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the requirements of the Document Management and Retention Requirements for three years from the Court's final approval of the settlement of this matter and exhaustion of any appeals (including any Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court). e. The Plaintiffs do not have a right of enforcement more than three years from the date of Final District Court Approval and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court). iii. Except as provided above, the remedy for enforcement is by way of a breach of contract claim subject to the notice and cure provision.
So ordered.
____________________________________ EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge
9

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM et ai.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES RAMSEY, et ai.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 02-CV-2283 (EGS)(JMF) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

----------------------------)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and

Payment Distribution, and for the reasons stated in open court at the Fairness Hearing held on
September 17, 2010 and September 22,2010, it is this~ay OfSt/l~010, hereby

ORDERED that the motion is granted.

The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate, Fed. R. Civ. P.23(e)(2).

It is FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

1. Within 45 days of the Final District Court Approval, or by September 30, 2010, whichever comes first, the District of Columbia shall deposit into an escrow account to be administered by the Class Administrator the following amounts:

$850,000 (constituting 100% ofthe Class Representatives Funds) $2,872,800 (constituting 60% of the maximum Claimant Funds) $1,477,999 (constituting 60% of the Attorneys Fees and Costs Funds)

2. By September 1, 2011, the District of Columbia shall deposit into an escrow account to be administered by the Class Administrator the remainder of the Claimant Funds, specifically, $1,915,200.

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 2 of 9
3. By September 1,2011, the District of Columbia shall deposit into an escrow account to be administered by the Class Administrator the following additional amount: $985,334 (constituting the remaining 40% of the Attorneys Fees and Costs).
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs and the Class Administrator shall petition the Court for an order authorizing the actual release, or disbursement, of funds from the escrow account to recipients.
It is hereby FURTHER ORDERED that, should this order granting final approval of the settlement be overturned, set aside or reversed on appeal or upon review, if any by the United States Supreme Court, then the Administrator shall be required and ordered to return all deposits or payments (with any accumulated interest) less the previously-made $150,000 Notification and Administration Funds payment.
It is further ORDERED that any residual funds remaining in Barham related escrow accounts after the satisfaction of all disbursements, payments and obligations pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, shall be returned and revert to the possession of the District of Columbia.
It is hereby acknowledged by the Court, as reflected in Section VII of the Settlement Agreement, that in entering into this settlement, there is no admission of liability by the District of Columbia nor do plaintiffs suggest or concede a lack of merit to their claims.
Expungement relief has been previously ordered by Court Order dated January 28,2008 (Dkt. No. 405). In accordance with that Order, "The District of Columbia shall provide for the expungement of the Barham Plaintiffs' arrest records and for those of all absent class members ... [and] shall use its best efforts to procure expungement of the September 27,2002 arrest records of any Pershing Park case Plaintiff or absent class member in the possession of the
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 3 of 9
United States Government (including, but not limited to, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, [or] any state or local government."
This Court has previously, by the January 28,2008 Order, declared the arrests of the Plaintiffs and Class Members null and void and has authorized each to "deny the occurrence of his or her arrest that day, without being subject to any penalty of perjury, fraud or other offense premised upon misrepresentation or deception in response to any inquiry, whether posed orally or in writing. These rights accrue to the full benefit of any absent class member regardless of whether an individualized entry of a nullification order is entered."
In accordance also with the January 28,2008 Order, for each class member, Class Counsel will file with the Clerk of the Court, under seal, a paper copy of a draft order of nullification, and the Court will issue an order that states as follows:
ORDER The arrest of [insert name, date of birth, and social security number] on September 27,2002, in the District of Columbia is hereby declared null and void. [Mr. or Ms. insert last name] is authorized to deny the occurrence of his or her arrest that day, without being subject to any penalty of perjury, fraud, or other offense premised upon misrepresentation or deception in response to any query, whether posed orally or in writing. So Ordered on this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ [date to be inserted] [signed] EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge
It is hereby FURTHER ORDERED that the following changes to policies and practices be undertaken, as specified in the Settlement Agreement Section III(B) ("Changes to Policies and Practices"):
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 4 of 9

1. Document Management System and Protocol; Evidence Indexing and Logging Requirements.

Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's fmal approval of settlement of

this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of

certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court), the District of Columbia will develop, maintain and/or

implement a document management protocol or system to ensure the preservation of records and

documents arising from mass demonstrations and protests, and to be used also in other litigation

brought against the District of Columbia as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General,

encompassing the Office of the Attorney General and the MPD Office of General Counsel that

provides for the following:

1.

Maintain an index and log of any documents, items, things, recorded or

electronic/computer/digitized material (hereinafter "record(s)") that are directly

related to a complaint or litigation hold letter for matters arising from mass

demonstrations and protests or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by the

Attorney General;

11. The index will assign a unique identifier to each record and, if possible, will be

numbered or identified in a continuous or contiguous manner. One of the intents

of the parties is to provide an internal "audit trail" that would alert the District to

any missing records or evidence.

111. The indexing for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests (or other

cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General) is intended as an

internal control over document management; use of the indexing system described

in this section is mandatory for all records received or reviewed in connection

with a case for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests (or other

4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 5 of 9
cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General); in the event that, due to the physicality or medium of an item, a copy of the item cannot be maintained or stored within a computer-based document management system, the requirements of above-referenced sub-paragraph (ii) still requires such items to be indexed and logged in an effective manner, i.e. in a central hard copy log or a dedicated spreadsheet; and the fact that a record is indexed is not intended to establish that the record is discoverable, relevant or admissible; IV. Communications that are protected by attorney-client privilege or protected as work product are not required or intended to be subject to this particular indexing, unless so desired by the District of Columbia in its own discretion; v. Records shall be indexed in the indexing system described and required by this section as soon as possible upon collection or review. 2. "Litigation Hold" Procedures and Practices to Prevent Loss or Destruction of Evidence. Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of Settlement of this matter upon these terms, the OAG shall issue policy statements mandating that upon written notice of likely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records pertaining to alleged police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests, the OAG shall affirmatively direct in writing and ensure that all documents, records, items, videos or computer files relating to the underlying incident be preserved and affirmatively protected from destruction for a period of no less than three (3) years. "Notice oflikely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records" is any notification in writing to the Chief of Police, or the Mayor; and/or service upon the Office of the Attorney General of a civil action complaint for matters alleging police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests. The contractual
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 6 of 9
definition used herein of "notice of likely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records" is not intended to alter the meaning of those terms of art as may be used by established reported case law precedent in the District of Columbia.
3. Preservation and Indexing of Command Center and Communications Systems Records and Data.
Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court), the MPD shall issue policy statements or general orders mandating that whenever a system is activated to assist in the management of mass demonstrations and protests or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General, all computer files, communications recordings / radio runs and documents reasonably related to the event shall be preserved and indexed for a period of no less than three (3) years.
4. Procedures and Practices to Index and Log Photographic or Video or other Recorded Evidence.
Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court), whenever any MPD officer is assigned to (or with the capability to) engage in photographic or video recording or surveillance of mass demonstration activity or protests; documentation shall be maintained reflecting the officer's name, assignment, the equipment and recording media issued; and indexing and logging the return of all media. Upon the return of any media, the officer shall document the dates, times, locations and events recorded and affix such information to the media itself or secure to the container that contains the media. This provision is intended solely to focus on indexing and record-keeping; it does not authorize under what circumstances such surveillance or recordings
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 7 of 9
may occur. This provision is not intended to supplant or supersede orders or rules pertaining to the use of closed circuit television and cataloging requirements set forth in such applicable orders or rules.
5. Communications with Class Counsel to Ensure Compliance. The District of Columbia, through the Office of Attorney General, shall engage in communications with and respond to reasonable inquiries from class counsel, as to the status and/or completion of the obligations set forth in the section, "Changes to Policies and Practices." 6. Mandatory Reporting Obligations. At six month intervals during the three year period of required implementation, the District of Columbia shall issue a report regarding measures taken to perform the requirements of Settlement Agreement section (III)(B), "Changes to Policies and Practices." Class Counsel shall be provided an advance copy of the report and provided opportunity to comment. The District shall consider the comments by Class Counsel. The comments or response of Class Counsel, if any, shall be incorporated as an included attachment or exhibit and published in the final report. The reports shall be transmitted to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, as well as made publicly available. Additionally, the District shall consult and communicate with Class Counsel during the system acquisition or procurement process. 7. Funding for Development and Operation of Document Management System. The District of Columbia shall use either the class/claimant funds that revert back to the District of Columbia under the settlement, if any, or the Settlement and Judgment Fund to pay the costs of the development and operation of the document management system. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this case as set forth in the following provisions:
7

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 8 of 9
i. Enforcement ofRight ofExpungement andfor Monetary Payments. The United States District Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the expungement and monetary payment terms for a period of three years from the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court).
ii. Enforcement ofDocument Management and Retention Requirements. a. The Document Management and Retention Requirements are those provisions in section (III)(B) ("Changes to Policies and Practices") of the Settlement Agreement. b. The District agrees to perform the requirements of the Document Management and Retention Requirements for a period of no less than three years from the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court). c. The Document Management and Retention Requirements may be extended for no more than two one year periods upon motion by the District of Columbia if the District of Columbia believes that such an extension is required to bring the defendants into compliance with the requirements of the settlement. The parties' intent is to fully fund, through the Settlement Agreement, the acquisition, development and training costs for the Document Management System, which would be expected to be greater in the initial years of implementation than in subsequent periods, and to establish funding
8

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 9 of 9
for three years, or as may be extended, a period of time believed to be amply sufficient for the use and benefits of the system to be well established. d. The United States District Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the requirements of the Document Management and Retention Requirements for three years from the Court's final approval of the settlement of this matter and exhaustion of any appeals (including any Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court). e. The Plaintiffs do not have a right of enforcement more than three years from the date of Final District Court Approval and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court). iii. Except as provided above, the remedy for enforcement is by way ofa breach of contract claim subject to the notice and cure provision.
United States District Judge
9

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1007 Filed 03/22/13 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFREY BARHAM et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES RAMSEY, et aI.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 02-CV-2283 (EGS)(JMF)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF MONITORING REPORT AND COMMENTS BY THE PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND
TO THE DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' FIFTH SIX MONTH REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REQUIRED CHANGES TO POLICIES AND PRACTICES
UNDER THE BARHAM CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Pursuant to the September 22, 2011 Final Approval Order of the class action settlement
between the Class and the District of Columbia Defendants (Docket No. 640), the Partnership for
Civil Justice Fund respectfully submits its Monitoring Report and Comments in response to the
"District Defendants' Fifth Six Month Report on the Implementation of Required Changes to
Policies and Practices Under the Barham Class Action Settlement Agreement."

March 22,2013

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Carl Messineo (#450033) Mara Verheyden-Hilliard (#450031) PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 617 Florida Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 232-1180 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1007 Filed 03/22/13 Page 2 of 4

LAW OFFICES
PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 617 FLORIDA AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001

CO-FOUNDERS: CARL MESSINEO· MARA VERHEYDEN-HILLIARD·
• ADMITTED IN D.C. AND N.Y.

TELEPHONE: (202) 232-1180 FACSIMILE: (202) 747-7747

MONITORING REPORT AND COMMENTS BY THE PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND TO THE DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' TIDRD SIX MONTH REPORT
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REQUIRED CHANGES TO POLICIES AND PRACTICES UNDER THE BARHAM CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
(Issued March 22, 2013)
The class action settlement agreement in Barham v. Ramsey, Civil Action No. 02-00283, assigned monitoring responsibilities to the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund and imposed reporting requirements upon the District ofColumbia regarding measures to implement changes to policies andpractices to ensure evidence preservation and to prevent recurrence ofthe evidence loss and/or destruction that was identified by the PCJF in the course oflitigation, and in the future.
"This is an oversight and reporting function that is intended to assure plaintiffS, the Court, and the public that the Document Management, Retention and Preservation goals ofthe Settlement Agreement are, infact, advanced and achieved. "Joint Motionfor Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and Payment Distributions, Supporting Memorandum at 38 (Docket #629).
This is the fifth ofsix periodic reports, and accompanying comments by the PCJF, as required during a mandatory three year reporting period. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the District ofColumbia is required to provide an advance copy ofits report to the PCJF. "The District shall consider the comments by Class Counsel. The comments or response ofClass
Counsel, ifany, shall be incorporated as an included attachment or exhibit and published in the
final report. The reports shall be transmitted to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, as well as made publicly available. "
With respect to prior submissions, the District ofColumbia has refused to incorporate Class Counsel's comments as an included attachment andpublished in the final report, necessitating a separate submission to the Court by Class Counsel ofits comments. Accordingly, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund respectfully submits its fifth monitoring report, which follows herein:

1

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1007 Filed 03/22/13 Page 3 of 4
With respect to the mechanical obligations of establishing proper policies as well as an audit trail and evidentiary management system, the District appears to be in compliance with the terms of the Barham settlement agreement.
However, so long as the District declines to hold accountable MPD General Counsel Terrence Ryan and attorneys working with him for their responsibility in connection with the secretion or loss or destruction of evidence in this matter, the landmark and effective system put into place by the Barham settlement could be circumvented.
It is clear, including from circumstances related to the discovery by D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Officer John Strader of a book labeled "JOCC Activation Running Resume," that delivering evidence directly into the hands ofMPD General Counsel Terrence Ryan does not ensure the preservation of such evidence and its ultimate entry into the evidence management system. It is a matter of record that many trails of inaccurate statements, evidence document loss and destruction in this case converge at the Offices of General Counsel Terrence Ryan and/or his Deputy General Counsel Ronald Harris.
In this Fifth Report, as the preceding Reports, the PCJF recommends again that
any person implicated in [the secretion, mislocation or destruction] of evidence in the [MPD] Office of General Counsel be suspended pending investigation to protect the integrity of evidence that runs through the OGC. The system that has been established, including through settlement terms, for imposing litigation holds and for tracking and managing evidence can be effective only if evidence reaches the entry point.
Given the failure for such disciplinary action to be undertaken, the PCJF further recommends such investigation be undertaken by an independent agency, such as by referral for criminal investigation and prosecution to the Department of Justice for action by the Public Integrity Division, the Civil Rights Division or whatever special attorney or specialized division is deemed most suitable by the U.S. Attorney General; or for the appointment of special counsel consistent with the statutory authority provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1815.
The PCJF represented to this Court, in its Second Monitoring Report and Comments, issued September 23,2011, that the Washington Field Office (WFO) ofthe Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is itself conflicted out of any investigation into evidence or destruction or tampering by the Office of General Counsel. That representation was precisely correct, as reflected by the failure of the WFO, which was tasked with investigating obstruction ofjustice in connection with certain running resume data, to conduct a minimally proper investigation. The FBI failed to analyze and investigate the loss and destruction of the running resume data in the Group Systems, i.e., the operational running resume system (as distinguished from the E-Teams System, which appears to have been run in a testing mode as it was being considered as a successor system).
Ancillary or corollary to the implementation of an effective set of policies and document management systems to preserve evidence is the imposition of accountability for those responsible for loss, secretion or destruction of evidence. The District of Columbia agrees that
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1007 Filed 03/22/13 Page 4 of 4 the threshold for a criminal investigation and potential prosecution has been met. However, as before, no personal accountability has been imposed to date.
3

 
 Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1011 Filed 09/23/13 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

JEFFREY BARHAM, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

C. A. No. 02-2283 (EGS)(JMF)

)

v.

)

)

CHARLES RAMSEY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

DEFENDANT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S SIX MONTH REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REQUIRED CHANGES TO POLICIES AND PRACTICES
UNDER THE BARHAM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Defendant District of Columbia (the “District”), by and through undersigned counsel,

respectfully submits this six month report regarding changes to policies and practices by the

District of Columbia pursuant to this Court’s September 22, 2010 Order granting the parties’

Joint Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and Payment Distribution in this

case. That Order provides that “[a]t six month intervals during the three year period of required

implementation, the District of Columbia shall issue a report regarding measures taken to

perform the requirement of the Settlement Agreement section (III)(B), “Changes to Policies and

Practices.” The District is pleased to report to the Court that it is in compliance with the agreed

upon terms of the settlement agreement with respect to each provision. The specific provisions

are set forth below with corresponding updates with respect to measures taken to perform the

actions required:

1. Document Management System and Protocol; Evidence Indexing and Logging

Requirements. Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of

settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1011 Filed 09/23/13 Page 2 of 10
petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court), the District of Columbia will develop, maintain and/or implement a document management protocol or system to ensure the preservation of records and documents arising from mass demonstrations and protests, and to be used also in other litigation brought against the District of Columbia as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General, encompassing the Office of the Attorney General and the MPD Office of General Counsel that provides for the following:
i. Maintain an index and log of any documents, items, things, recorded or electronic/computer/digitized material (hereinafter "record(s)") that are directly related to a complaint or litigation hold letter for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General; ii. The index will assign a unique identifier to each record and, if possible, will be numbered or identified in a continuous or contiguous manner. One of the intents of the parties is to provide an internal "audit trail" that would alert the District to any missing records or evidence. iii. The indexing for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests (or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General) is intended as an internal control over document management; use of the indexing system described in this section, (III)(B)(l), is mandatory for all records received or reviewed in connection with a case for matters arising from mass demonstrations and protests (or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General); in the event that, due to the physicality or medium of an item, a copy of the item cannot be maintained or stored within a computer-based document management system, the requirements of above-referenced sub-paragraph (ii)
2

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1011 Filed 09/23/13 Page 3 of 10
still requires such items to be indexed and logged in an effective manner, i.e. in a central hard copy log or a dedicated spreadsheet; and the fact that a record is indexed is not intended to establish that the record is discoverable, relevant or admissible; iv. Communications that are protected by attorney-client privilege or protected as work product are not required or intended to be subject to this particular indexing, unless so desired by the District of Columbia in its own discretion; v. Records shall be indexed in the indexing system described and required by section (III)(B)(I) as soon as possible upon collection or review.
Status As previously reported, pursuant to D.C. Code § 1-207.31 and 31 U.S.C. § 1537, which authorize the District government to utilize services of the United States government on a reimbursable basis, the OAG is using a contract administered by the U.S. Department of Justice to develop the OAG document management system for the mass demonstration cases. The contract provides information technology and automated litigation support services for the Department of Justice and other agencies. Under that contract, on January 7, 2011, a task order was awarded to Lockheed Martin Systems, Inc. to develop a mass demonstration document management system for OAG that meets all requirements of the court’s order. Development of the OAG Document Management System began on January 13, 2011. While the original contract with DOJ (Mega 3) expires at the end of November, 2013, the task order is currently in a re-bid status. Lockheed Martin will continue to provide support under the current contract until its expiration; if the award goes to a company other than Lockheed Martin, Lockheed Martin will transition all the work to the new contractor and will be available to assist with the project until
3

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1011 Filed 09/23/13 Page 4 of 10
the transition is complete. Thus, the OAG will continue to maintain its document management system.
The system is centered around a LexisNexis Concordance litigation support system maintained at the OAG. In any matter for which a mass demonstration complaint is received or a litigation hold letter in a mass demonstration incident is issued, as soon as relevant documents are identified (be they hardcopy, audio‐visual media, or electronic in origin) they are gathered and forwarded to the OAG Document Management System center for processing. This is done pursuant to internal document tracking and handling procedures to be implemented at District agencies. For each document processed, a “universal unique identifier” is assigned. This identifier has a sequential, non‐volatile field value (not changed when records are inserted into or deleted from a Concordance database) and does not appear on any pages produced from a database. OAG is able to use records included within the document management system to respond to discovery, for which production‐specific Bates numbers will then be assigned to the produced pages. The produced Bates number ranges will be maintained in the associated, uniquely identified Concordance database records in a production history field. All items which are not compatible with the current system, such as video and audio recordings, are inventoried and the inventories are loaded into the system. The system has been developed using OAG-owned equipment and will be operated and maintained within OAG’s offices. As part of the system development, OAG has to date purchased and installed an additional $51,000 of software on its existing document scanning and computer systems, and an additional $3,300 for hardware. OAG has also continued to purchase renewals of the Law Maintenance Agreement as needed since the system was purchased. Documents from the Barham/Chang litigation and other related mass demonstration cases
4

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1011 Filed 09/23/13 Page 5 of 10
continue to be maintained with the Concordance system and the system is being used for ongoing discovery-related production in the Chang litigation.
2. "Litigation Hold" Procedures and Practices to Prevent Loss or Destruction of Evidence. Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms, the OAG shall issue policy statements mandating that upon written notice of likely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records pertaining to alleged police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests, the OAG shall affirmatively direct in writing and ensure that all documents, records, items, videos or computer files relating to the underlying incident be preserved and affirmatively protected from destruction for a period of no less than three (3) years. "Notice of likely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records" is any notification in writing to the Chief of Police, or the Mayor; and/or service upon the Office of the Attorney General of a civil action complaint for matters alleging police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests. The contractual definition used herein of "notice of likely litigation and/or request to preserve documents and records" is not intended to alter the meaning of those terms of art as may be used by established reported case law precedent in the District of Columbia.
Status As previously reported, OAG issued a mandatory policy to the Civil Litigation Division. The attorneys in the Civil Litigation Division are responsible for defending all litigation involving mass demonstrations. OAG has updated the portion of its Civil Litigation Division (“CLD”) manual which addresses litigation hold requirements to include the procedures which must be followed when written notice is received of likely litigation and/or request to preserve
5

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1011 Filed 09/23/13 Page 6 of 10
documents and records pertaining to alleged police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests. The CLD manual is maintained internally on the OAG’s intranet and is available to all staff. In addition, the Attorney General issued a directive to the MPD Chief of Police informing the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department’s obligations related to litigation hold procedures pursuant to this Court’s Order. The Executive Office of the Chief of Police (EOCOP) has a system for tracking incoming mail. All legal matters received by EOCOP, including notices of likely litigation, are forwarded to the Office of the General Counsel (OGC). OGC has issued its own policy statement regarding litigation hold requirements for mass demonstration cases. In keeping with the Barham agreement and the Court’s order, the policy mandates that for notices forwarded to OGC alleging police misconduct involving or relating to mass demonstrations or protests, litigation hold letters shall be issued by OGC to MPD, and copies of the notices shall be forwarded to OAG to ensure that all other agencies implicated by the notices receive litigation hold letters from OAG.
3. Preservation and Indexing of Command Center and Communications Systems Records and Data. Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court), the MPD shall issue policy statements or general orders mandating that whenever a system is activated to assist in the management of mass demonstrations and protests or other cases as may be deemed appropriate by the Attorney General, all computer files, communications recordings / radio runs and documents reasonably related to the event shall be preserved and indexed for a period of no less than three (3) years.
6

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1011 Filed 09/23/13 Page 7 of 10
Status As previously reported, an MPD Revised Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) for Handling First Amendment Assemblies and Mass Demonstrations was issued, effective January 20, 2011. The SOP was amended to address the preservation and indexing of computer files, communications recordings/radio runs and documents whenever a system is activated to assist in the management of mass demonstrations and protests. Attachment N to the SOP contains the specifics on the new requirements. The SOP is publically available on MPD’s website at mpdc.dc.gov and can be found by using the following link: https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/SOP_11_01.pdf.
4. Procedures and Practices to Index and Log Photographic or Video or other Recorded Evidence. Commencing not later than 120 days following the Court's final approval of settlement of this matter upon these terms and the exhaustion of any appeals (including any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court), whenever any MPD officer is assigned to (or with the capability to) engage in photographic or video recording or surveillance of mass demonstration activity or protests; documentation shall be maintained reflecting the officer's name, assignment, the equipment and recording media issued; and indexing and logging the return of all media. Upon the return of any media, the officer shall document the dates, times, locations and events recorded and affix such information to the media itself or secure to the container that contains the media. This provision is intended solely to focus on indexing and record-keeping; it does not authorize under what circumstances such surveillance or recordings may occur. This provision is not intended to supplant or supersede orders or rules pertaining to
7

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1011 Filed 09/23/13 Page 8 of 10
the use of closed circuit television and cataloging requirements set forth in such applicable orders or rules.
Status As previously reported, an MPD Revised Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) for Handling First Amendment Assemblies and Mass Demonstrations was issued, effective January 20, 2011. The SOP was amended to address the collection and retention of audio and video recordings associated with First Amendment Assemblies and Mass Demonstrations. The SOP is publically available on MPD’s website at mpdc.dc.gov and can be found by using the following link: https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/SOP_11_01.pdf. Attachment N to the SOP contains the specifics on the new requirements.
5. Communications with Class Counsel to Ensure Compliance. The District of Columbia, through the Office of Attorney General, shall engage in communications with and respond to reasonable inquiries from class counsel, as to the status and/or completion of the obligations set forth in the section, "Changes to Policies and Practices."
Status The Office of the Attorney General continues to engage in communications with Class Counsel as needed and responded to inquiries.
6. Mandatory Reporting Obligations. At six month intervals during the three year period of required implementation, the District of Columbia shall issue a report regarding measures taken to perform the requirements of section (III)(B), "Changes to Policies and Practices." Class Counsel shall be provided an advance copy of the report and provided opportunity to comment.
8

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1011 Filed 09/23/13 Page 9 of 10
The District shall consider the comments by Class Counsel. The comments or response of Class Counsel, if any, shall be incorporated as an included attachment or exhibit and published in the final report. The reports shall be transmitted to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, as well as made publicly available. Additionally, the District shall consult and communicate with Class Counsel during the system acquisition or procurement process.
Status All changes to policies and practices were instituted and all statements issued within the 120 day deadlines set by the Court’s order. The District of Columbia remains committed to ensuring that the agreement of the parties is fully executed. On September 19, 2013, counsel for the Barham Class Plaintiffs was provided a draft copy of this report for review and comment.
7. Funding for Development and Operation of Document Management System. The District of Columbia shall use either the class/claimant funds that revert back to the District of Columbia under the settlement, if any, or the Settlement and Judgment Fund to pay the costs of the development and operation of the document management system.
Status As previously reported, no class/claimant funds have reverted back to the District. The funding for the court-ordered obligation has been provided to support the costs of the document management project.
Respectfully submitted, IRVIN B. NATHAN Attorney General for the District of Columbia /s/ Ellen A. Efros_________________ ELLEN A. EFROS Deputy Attorney General
9

Case 1:02-cv-02283-EGS-JMF Document 1011 Filed 09/23/13 Page 10 of 10
Public Interest Division /s/ Shana L. Frost_________________ SHANA L. FROST [458021] Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 441 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-6534 Fax: (202) 741-8934 shana.frost@dc.gov Attorneys for the District of Columbia
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 23, 2013, I filed the foregoing with the Court’s electronic filing system, which will serve notice upon all counsel of record.
/s/ Shana L. Frost______________ Assistant Attorney General
10

 
 Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 1 of 141
CLOSED,JURY,MEDIATION,TYPE−L
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02−cv−02283−EGS

BARHAM et al v. RAMSEY et al Assigned to: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan Case in other court: 04−05389
07−05305 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff
JEFFREY BARHAM

Date Filed: 11/19/2002 Date Terminated: 08/03/2015 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Carl L. Messineo PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE, INC. 617 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 232−1180 x201 Fax: (202) 747−7747 Email: cm@JusticeOnline.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE, INC. 617 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 232−1180 x 202 Fax: (202) 747−7747 Email: mvh@JusticeOnline.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Merrilyn Anne Onisko PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 607 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 530−5630 Fax: (202) 530−5634 Email: monisko@justiceonline.org TERMINATED: 12/01/2005
Radhika M.S. Miller NATIONAL LEGAL AID & DEFENDER ASSOCIATION 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 452−0620 ext. 207 Fax: (202) 872−1031 Email: radhika.singhmiller@gmail.com TERMINATED: 03/25/2011
Zachary J. Wolfe GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 801 22nd Street, NW Rome Hall 557 Washington, DC 20052 (202) 265−5965 Fax: (202) 250−6712 Email: zwolfe@PeoplesLawResourceCenter.org

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 2 of 141

TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff MARY CANALES

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff WILLIAM DURHAM

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff NOAH FALK

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 3 of 141

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff MARK ALLEN JACKSON

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff CASEY LEGLER

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 4 of 141

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff CHARLCIE LEGLER

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff
MICHAEL LEHACH TERMINATED: 07/29/2005

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff
SEAN MCATEER TERMINATED: 07/29/2005

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 5 of 141

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

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff
LORETTA MCATEER as Guardians for Brian Mcateer TERMINATED: 07/29/2005

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff SALLY A. NORTON

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff JOHN PASSACANTANDO

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 6 of 141

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff JOSEPH PHELAN

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff NICOLE PRICHARD

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff MORGAN RESS

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 7 of 141

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff LAURY SALIGMAN

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff MACDONALD SCOTT

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 8 of 141

TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff MILES SWANSON

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff JERI WOHLBERG

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff LESLEY WOOD

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 9 of 141

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff SAMANTHA YOUNG

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff
DEVON YATES TERMINATED: 07/29/2005

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mara E. Verheyden−Hilliard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 10 of 141

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Merrilyn Anne Onisko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005

Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Plaintiff BRIAN MCATEER

represented by Carl L. Messineo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Radhika M.S. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2011

V.
Defendant
CHARLES H. RAMSEY in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Chief of Police, MPD TERMINATED: 07/16/2007

represented by Jacques P. Lerner OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Litigation Division 441 4th Street, NW One Judiciary Square− 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724−1342 Fax: (202) 741−5908 Email: jacques.lerner@dc.gov TERMINATED: 09/15/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin M. Shellaway FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 (202) 502−6573 Fax: (202) 208−0057 Email: justin.shellaway@ferc.gov TERMINATED: 06/11/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mark Henry Tuohey , III BROWN RUDNICK, LLP 601 Thirteenth Street, NW Suite 600S Washington, DC 20005 (202) 536−1700 Fax: (202) 289−0450 Email: mtuohey@brownrudnick.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Martin Faust LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. FAUST, PLLC

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 11 of 141

1325 G. Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 449−7707 Fax: 202 449 7701 Email: john@johnfaustlaw.com TERMINATED: 07/09/2010

Lori S. Parris 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 442−8404 Fax: (202) 727−3625 Email: lori.parris@dc.gov TERMINATED: 04/06/2006

Thomas Louis Koger OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Public Interest Division, Equity Section 441 4th Street, NW Suite 630 South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 727−4170 Fax: (202) 715−7762 Email: thomas.koger@dc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

represented by Ellen A. Efros COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Office of the General Counsel 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 4 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 724−7820 Fax: (202) 724−8129 Email: eefros@dccouncil.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacques P. Lerner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monique Daniel Pressley PRESSLEY FIRM, PLLC 1629 K Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 973−0181 Email: mdpressley@thepressleyfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shana Lyn Frost OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Litigation Division

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 12 of 141
441 4th Street, NW One Judiciary Square− 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724−6534 Fax: (202) 741−8934 Email: shana.frost@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Wayne Copeland OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 441 4th Street, NW Suite 630 South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724−6623 Fax: (202) 741−8880 Email: chad.copeland@dc.gov TERMINATED: 05/14/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jayme Kantor OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 441 Fourth Street, NW 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724−6627 Email: jayme.kantor@dc.gov TERMINATED: 04/22/2009
Leah Brownlee Taylor OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Public Interest Division 441 4th Street, NW Suite 600 South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724 −7854 Fax: (202) 727−3625 Email: leah.taylor@dc.gov TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Lori S. Parris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2006
Martha J. Mullen OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Litigation Division 441 4th Street, NW One Judiciary Square− 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724−6612 Fax: (202) 730−0635 Email: martha.mullen@dc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Louis Koger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 13 of 141

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT TERMINATED: 10/03/2005

represented by Jacques P. Lerner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori S. Parris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2006

Martha J. Mullen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Louis Koger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ANTHONY WILLIAMS in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Mayor TERMINATED: 01/10/2006

represented by Jacques P. Lerner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori S. Parris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2006

Thomas Louis Koger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
GALE A. NORTON in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior

represented by Marina Utgoff Braswell U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Civil Division 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252−2561 Fax: (202) 252−2599 Email: Marina.Braswell@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary Philip−Matthew Corn U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 353−9895 Fax: (202) 514−8780 Email: gary.corn@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/10/2005

Michelle Nicole Bradford U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252−7803

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 14 of 141

Fax: (202) 514−7880 Email: michelle.bradford@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/03/2009

Peter S. Smith UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Appellate Division 555 4th Street, NW Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20530−0001 (202) 252−6769 Fax: (202) 514−8779 Email: peter.smith@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 11/15/2007

Edith Margeurita Shine UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 307−1249 Fax: (202) 514−8780 Email: edith.shine@usss.dhs.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOHN ASHCROFT in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States TERMINATED: 07/29/2005

represented by Marina Utgoff Braswell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary Philip−Matthew Corn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005

Peter S. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007

Edith Margeurita Shine (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

represented by Brian P. Hudak U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Civil Division 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252−2549 Fax: (202) 252−2599 Email: brian.hudak@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

Marina Utgoff Braswell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary Philip−Matthew Corn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2005

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 15 of 141

Michelle Nicole Bradford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2009

Peter S. Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2007

Edith Margeurita Shine (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES in their individual and official capacities

represented by Marina Utgoff Braswell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Nicole Bradford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2009

Edith Margeurita Shine (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant PETER NEWSHAM

represented by Chad Wayne Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ellen A. Efros (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shana Lyn Frost (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

David W. Buckley DESO & BUCKLEY, P.C. 1776 K Street, NW Suite 830 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 822−6333 Fax: (202) 822−6665 Email: dwbuckley@dtswlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Edward Deso DESO & BUCKLEY, P.C. 1776 K Street, NW Suite 830 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 822−6333 Fax: (202) 478−2181 Email: redeso@dtswlaw.com

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 16 of 141

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ALBERTO GONZALES In his official capacity

represented by Brian P. Hudak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Marina Utgoff Braswell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Nicole Bradford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2009

Defendant
RICHARD MURPHY Department of the Interior, in his individual and official capacity

represented by Brian P. Hudak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marina Utgoff Braswell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Nicole Bradford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2009

Defendant
ADRIAN M. FENTY Mayor, in his official capacity

represented by Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Louis Koger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Chad Wayne Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2010

Defendant
CATHY L. LANIER District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Chief, in her official capacity

represented by Ellen A. Efros (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Monique Daniel Pressley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Shana Lyn Frost (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas Louis Koger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 17 of 141

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chad Wayne Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2010

Defendant
CHARLES H. RAMSEY in his individual and personal capacity only

represented by Lauren Elizabeth Curry IBM 1 North Castle Dr. Armonk, NY 10504 (914) 765−7501 Email: laurenecurry@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Henry Tuohey , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Martin Faust (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/09/2010

Defendant
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. Attorney General

represented by Brian P. Hudak (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marina Utgoff Braswell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
KENNETH LEE SALAZAR Secretary of the Interior

represented by Brian P. Hudak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marina Utgoff Braswell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Interested Party ZACHARY WOLFE

represented by Carol A. Sobel 429 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 550 Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 393−3055 Fax: (310) 393−3605 Email: carolsobel@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zachary J. Wolfe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2003

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 18 of 141

Movant RAYMING CHANG
Movant AMY CHASTAIN Movant YOUNG CHOI

represented by Daniel C. Schwartz BRYAN CAVE, LLP 1155 F Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 508−6000 Fax: (202) 220−7325 Email: dcschwartz@bryancave.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Alan Zetoony BRYAN CAVE, LLP 1801 13th Street Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 444−5955 Fax: (303) 417−8550 Email: david.zetoony@bryancave.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan Jay Snyder U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 100 F St. NE Washington, DC 20549 (202) 551−5030 Email: snyderi@sec.gov TERMINATED: 12/02/2011
Jacob A. Kramer BRYAN CAVE, LLP 1155 F Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 508−6153 Fax: (202) 220−7453 Email: jakramer@bryancave.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Alan Zetoony (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob A. Kramer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel C. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Alan Zetoony (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 19 of 141

Movant MEAGHAN ENRIGHT Movant LEANNE LEE
Movant ELIZABETH L. YOUNG Movant CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI

Ivan Jay Snyder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2011
Jacob A. Kramer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Alan Zetoony (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel C. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Alan Zetoony (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan Jay Snyder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2011
represented by David Alan Zetoony (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel C. Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Alan Zetoony (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan Jay Snyder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2011
Jacob A. Kramer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/19/2002

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against JOHN ASHCROFT , D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT , DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA , GALE A. NORTON , CHARLES H. RAMSEY , UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , ANTHONY

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 20 of 141

11/19/2002
11/19/2002 11/20/2002 11/20/2002 11/20/2002 02/07/2003
02/07/2003
02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003

WILLIAMS (Filing fee $ 150.) , filed by JEFFREY BARHAM , MARY CANALES , WILLIAM DURHAM , NOAH FALK , JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ , MARK ALLEN JACKSON , CASEY LEGLER , CHARLCIE LEGLER , MICHAEL LEHACH , LORETTA MCATEER , SEAN MCATEER , SALLY A. NORTON , JOHN PASSACANTANDO , JOSEPH PHELAN , NICOLE PRICHARD , MORGAN RESS , LAURY SALIGMAN , MACDONALD SCOTT , MILES SWANSON , JERI WOHLBERG , LESLEY WOOD , SAMANTHA YOUNG , SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN .(cdw, ) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by JEFFREY BARHAM , MARY CANALES , WILLIAM DURHAM , NOAH FALK , JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ , MARK ALLEN JACKSON , CASEY LEGLER , CHARLCIE LEGLER , MICHAEL LEHACH , LORETTA MCATEER , SEAN MCATEER , SALLY A. NORTON , JOHN PASSACANTANDO , JOSEPH PHELAN , NICOLE PRICHARD , MORGAN RESS , LAURY SALIGMAN , MACDONALD SCOTT , MILES SWANSON , JERI WOHLBERG , LESLEY WOOD , SAMANTHA YOUNG , SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN . Case related to Case No. 01−72 International Action Center, et al v. USA, et al. (cdw, ) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
SUMMONS Not Issued as to JOHN ASHCROFT ; D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT ; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ; GALE A. NORTON ; CHARLES H. RAMSEY ; UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ; ANTHONY WILLIAMS (cdw, ) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
Case reassigned to Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. Judge Gladys Kessler no longer assigned to the case. (cdw, ) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
SUMMONS (3) Issued as to JOHN ASHCROFT ; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , U.S. Attorney (cdw, ) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
Summons (6) Issued as to D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT , DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA , CHARLES H. RAMSEY , ANTHONY WILLIAMS . (cdw, ) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
3 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice, with Memorandum in Support by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
16 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by DEVON YATES, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN.(td, ) (Entered: 03/02/2003)
4 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. (Wolfe, Zachary) Modified on 2/12/2003 (td, ). Modified on 2/12/2003 (td, ). (Entered: 02/12/2003)
5 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA served on 2/7/2003, answer due 4/8/2003. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 02/12/2003)
6 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
7 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to US Attorney served on 2/7/2003, answer due 4/8/2003. (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
8 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Individual Capacity, served on 2/7/2003, answer due

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 21 of 141

02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/27/2003 03/09/2003 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 03/28/2003 04/04/2003 04/07/2003
04/07/2003
04/08/2003

2/27/2003. (td, ) Modified on 2/14/2003 (td, ). (Entered: 02/14/2003)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Official Capacity, served on 2/7/2003, answer due 2/27/2003. (td, ) Modified on 2/14/2003 (td, ). Modified on 2/14/2003 (td, ). (Entered: 02/14/2003)
10 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to GALE A. NORTON served on 2/7/2003, answer due 4/8/2003. (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
11 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT served on 2/7/2003, answer due 2/27/2003 (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
12 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. CHARLES H. RAMSEY served on 2/7/2003, answer due 2/27/2003 (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
13 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. CHARLES H. RAMSEY,Individual Capacity served on 2/7/2003, answer due 2/27/2003 (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
14 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA served on 2/7/2003, answer due 2/27/2003 (td, ) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
15 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Lerner, Jacques) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
17 ORDER granting 15 Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 3/9/03. (Entered: 03/09/2003)
18 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
19 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 3 MOTION to Certify Class and Notice, with Memorandum in Support by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
20 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 3 ,plaintiffs' motion to certify the class and for notice, filed by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
21 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to respond to the Complaint by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/04/2003)
22 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 Memorandum in Opposition by Federal Defendants to Motion for Class Certification by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 04/07/2003)
23 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 19 Federal Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, granting 21 Federal Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to, granting 22 Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 4/7/03. (Entered: 04/07/2003)
24 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and for Enlargements of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint and to Motion for Class Certification by D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Lerner, Jacques) (Entered: 04/08/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 22 of 141

04/09/2003 04/09/2003 04/14/2003 04/17/2003 04/21/2003 04/22/2003
04/23/2003
04/23/2003
04/24/2003 04/25/2003

25 NOTICE of Appearance by Edith Margeurita Shine on behalf of JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Shine, Edith) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
Case Reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Judge Ricardo M. Urbina no longer assigned to the case. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/15/2003)
26 REPLY in support of motion re 3 filed by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
27 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/17/2003)
28 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 24 consolidating cases filed by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/21/2003)
29 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 24 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and for Enlargements of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint and to Motion for Class Certification by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
30 NOTICE by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
31 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 24 to Consolidate filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc, 29 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 24 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and for Enlargements of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint and to Motion for Class Certification. Response due by 4/23/2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 24, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
32 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Declaration# 3 Declaration)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/25/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 23 of 141

05/07/2003 05/08/2003
05/16/2003 05/23/2003 06/02/2003
06/04/2003 06/04/2003
06/05/2003 06/16/2003
06/20/2003

ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 27 Federal Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 7, 2003. (GK, ) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
33 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
ORDER granting 33 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 6/2/2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 16, 2003. (GK, ) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
34 SCHEDULING ORDER: Motion Hearing set for 6/24/2003 11:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Emmet G. Sullivan. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 23, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
35 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 06/02/2003)
36 NOTICE of Appearance by Edith Margeurita Shine on behalf of JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Shine, Edith) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
37 NOTICE by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 35 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
ORDER granting 35 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 32 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Response due by 6/16/2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 5, 2003.(lcegs2) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
38 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
39 SCHEDULING ORDER: Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2003 11:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Emmet G. Sullivan. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 20, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/20/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 24 of 141

06/20/2003 06/20/2003
06/23/2003
07/03/2003 07/03/2003 07/08/2003 07/08/2003 07/09/2003 07/09/2003 07/18/2003 07/22/2003 07/23/2003

ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 38 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 32 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Response due by 6/20/2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 20, 2003.(lcegs2) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
40 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment by One Day by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
41 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 32 filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Murphy# 2 Exhibit Washington Post Article# 3 Affidavit of Dr. Norton# 4 Affidavit of Falk# 5 Affidavit of Young# 6 Affidavit of Ress# 7 Exhibit photo# 8 Exhibit Washington Post Article# 9 Exhibit Article# 10 Exhibit Genoa photos# 11 Exhibit # 12 Exhibit # 13 Exhibit # 14 Exhibit # 15 Exhibit # 16 Exhibit # 17 Exhibit)(Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
42 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
43 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
44 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
45 SCHEDULING ORDER: Motion Hearing set for 7/9/03 at 11:00 a.m. CONTINUED to 8/4/2003 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Emmet G. Sullivan. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 8, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
46 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 41 Memorandum in Opposition,,, by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
ORDER granting 40 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, granting 43 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, and granting 46 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 9, 2003. (GK, ) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
47 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 41 Memorandum in Opposition,,, by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
ORDER granting 47 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re 32 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Reply due by 7/23/2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 22, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
48 REPLY to opposition to motion re 32 and opposition to Rule 56(f) motion for discovery 41 filed by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/23/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 25 of 141

07/28/2003 07/29/2003 08/04/2003
08/05/2003
08/06/2003 09/05/2003 09/10/2003 09/11/2003 09/12/2003 09/12/2003 09/24/2003 09/24/2003 09/27/2003 10/02/2003

49 Consent MOTION to Continue August 4, 2003 Motions Hearing by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
ORDER granting 49 Motion to Continue hearing on pending motions currently scheduled for August 4, 2003 to September 11, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 29, 2003.(lcegs2) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
50 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 48 Reply to opposition to Motion for Discovery Under Rule 56(f) by One Day by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 08/04/2003)
51 RESPONSE to Federal Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross−Motion for Discovery Under Rule 56(f) filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 50 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in support of 48 Cross−Motion for Discovery under Rule 56(f). Reply due by 8/5/2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 6, 2003.(lcegs2) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
52 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
53 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 9/11/2003. Motion Hearing set for 12/11/2003 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Emmet G. Sullivan. chambers to issue order;(Court Reporter Frank Rangus.) (clv, ) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
54 ORDER directing the Clerk of the Court to file documents. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 12, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
55 NOTICE of filing of Undated Final Report Relative to Complaints of Alleged Misconduct, Report Relative to complaints of Alleged Misconduct and March 13, 2003 Memorandum by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(td, ) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
56 ORDER denying 24 Motion to Consolidate Cases, granting 3 Motion to Certify Class, and setting forth further instructions to counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 19, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for December 11, 2003, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
57 NOTICE by JEFFREY BARHAM of Withdrawal of Counsel, Zachary Wolfe (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/27/2003)
58 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Second

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 26 of 141

10/03/2003 10/03/2003 10/08/2003 10/09/2003 10/09/2003 10/09/2003
10/09/2003
10/09/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003
10/15/2003

Amended Complaint)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/02/2003)
ORDER granting 58 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 3, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
59 AMENDED COMPLAINT (second) against all defendants, filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS (td, ) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Federal Defendants' Dispositive Motion by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
MINUTE ORDER granting 60 Motion for Extension of Time until October 15, 2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 9, 2003. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
61 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Their Dispositive Motion by D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
62 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Their Dispositive Motion by D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order to Enlrge Time To File Dispositive Motion)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
63 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to To File Dispositive Motion by D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order to enlarge time to file motion (corrected))(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
64 RESPONSE to Court's Order Provisionally Certifying Barham Class filed by D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
ORDER granting 61 Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 10, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/10/2003)
65 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .MOTION to Dismiss by CHARLES H. RAMSEY. (Attachments: # 1)(Koger, Thomas) Modified on 10/14/2003 (td, ). (Entered: 10/10/2003)
NOTICE OF ENTERED IN ERROR DOCUMENT re 65 MOTION to Dismiss. Attorney has been notified to correct the filing. (td, ) (Entered: 10/14/2003)
66 RESPONSE to Federal Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Federal Defendants' Dispositive Motion filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/14/2003)
67 MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 3 Exhibit Defendants' Statement Of Material Facts# 4 Exhibit Herlod Declaration# 5 Exhibit Ramsey Decl# 6 Exhibit Prisoner Control Plan Excerpt# 7 Exhibit MPD G.O. 502.6# 8 Exhibit A/C Shannon Cockett After Action Report# 9 Exhibit A/C Hilton Burton After Action Report# 10 Errata MPD G.O. 502.01# 11 Exhibit January 25 Report# 12 Exhibit 1996 Mass Demo Manual Excerpt# 13 Exhibit 2003 Mass Demo Manual Cover# 14 Exhibit #11# 15 Exhibit A/C Brian K. Jordan Decl# 16 Exhibit Citation Release Chart)(Koger,

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 27 of 141

10/15/2003
10/15/2003 10/30/2003
10/30/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003 11/04/2003
11/05/2003
11/05/2003 11/05/2003

Thomas) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
68 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Strait Declaration# 2 Affidavit Rice Declaration# 3 Affidavit Murphy Declaration# 4 Exhibit Ex. 1, Murphy Decl.# 5 Exhibit Ex. 2, Murphy Decl.# 6 Exhibit Ex. 3, Murphy Decl.# 7 Exhibit Ex. 4, Murphy Decl.# 8 Exhibit Ex. 5, Murphy Decl.# 9 Exhibit Ex. 1, Murphy Decl.# 10 Exhibit Ex. 7, Murphy Decl.# 11 Exhibit Ex. 8, Murphy Decl.)(Shine, Edith) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
69 MOTION to Dismiss Portions of the Complaint by D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Text of Proposed Order Barham DC & MPD MTD Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
70 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Oppositions to Pending Motions to Dismiss by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
MINUTE ORDER granting 70 Motion for Extension of Time to File Oppositions to Pending Motions to Dismiss.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 30, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
71 ORDER cancelling December 11, 2003, Motions Hearing and setting Motions Hearing for February 11, 2004, at 10:00 a.m.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 31, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motions Hearing set for February 11, 2004, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
72 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Oppositions to Pending Motions to Dismiss by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
73 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Oppositions to Pending Motions to Dismiss by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 72 Motion for Extension of Time to File Oppositions to Pending Motions to Dismiss, and granting 73 Motion for Extension of Time to File Oppositions to Pending Motions to Dismiss.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 5, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
74 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 68 Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 28 of 141

11/12/2003
11/13/2003 11/19/2003
11/19/2003 11/21/2003

SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Richard Murphy submitted in Barham case# 2 Exhibit article, Police Consider Legal Action in Effort to Disrupt Protests# 3 Exhibit article, Italian Police Planted Petrol Bombs on G8 Protesters# 4 Exhibit article State Monitored War Protesters# 5 Exhibit article, Protest Versus an Act of Terrorism# 6 Exhibit article, Many Arrested Few Charged# 7 Exhibit article, Taken for a Ride Police Turn Bike Strike into a Tour de Force# 8 Affidavit Dr Sally Norton# 9 Affidavit Noah Falk# 10 Affidavit Samantha Young# 11 Affidavit Morgan Ress# 12 Exhibit A Bust in Pershing Park# 13 Exhibit MPD training manual excerpt re civil liability for failure to intervene# 14 Affidavit James Rice III# 15 Exhibit Statement of Captain Andrew Solberg# 16 Exhibit MPD interview with Captain Rick Murphy of US Park Police# 17 Exhibit Statement of Assistant Chief Newsham# 18 Affidavit Declaration of Richard Murphy submitted in Chang case)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
75 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Oppositions to Three Pending Motions to Dismiss From District Related Defendants by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/12/2003)
MINUTE ORDER granting 75 Motion for Extension of Time to File Oppositions to Three Pending Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed by no later than November 19, 2003.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 13, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the numerous requests for extension of time, the Court sua sponte schedules a status conference for November 25, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One. If this date and time are not convenient for counsel for any of the parties, that attorney will be responsible for communicating with counsel in all five cases and ascertaining a mutually convenient alternative date and time to propose to the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 19, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/25/2003 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
76 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 67 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternate for Summary Judgment, Filed by Chief Ramsey and Mayor Williams filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts in Genuine Dispute# 2 index to attachments# 3 Exhibit MPD Manual for Mass Demonstrations 1996 revision# 4 Exhibit Declaration of Chief Charles Ramsey# 5 Exhibit article, Police Arrest 649 During Capital Demonstrations Against Globalization# 6 Exhibit Lehrer Online Newshour (transcript)# 7 Exhibit Jason Cherkis, Boss Hogtie, The Washington City Paper, January 17 − 23# 8 Exhibit Fahrenthold and Nakamura, Doubt Cast on Arrests of IMF Protesters, The Washington Post, February 27, 2003# 9 Exhibit Fernandez and Reel, Against War a Peaceful March, The Washington Post, September 30, 2002# 10 Exhibit By a Washington Post Staff Writer, Did D.C. Police Go Too Far, October 1, 2002# 11 Exhibit USA: Activists Decry Police Tactics in Anti−Globalization Protests, Agence France Press, October 1, 2002# 12 Exhibit Carol D Leonnig, IMF Arrests Improper, Police Found, The Washington Post, September 13, 2003# 13 Exhibit Fernandez and Fahrenthold, Police Arrest Hundreds in Protests, The Washington Post, September 28, 2002# 14 Exhibit Carol Guzy, I'll Tell You Whats Wrong With This Picture, The Washington Post, May 7, 2000# 15 Exhibit Confidential training document, "Video Treatment − MPD Training Tools − 6/18/01"# 16 Exhibit Final Report Relative to Complaints of Alleged

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 29 of 141

11/21/2003
11/24/2003
11/24/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003

Misconduct# 17 Exhibit Statement of Assistant Chief Peter Newsham# 18 Exhibit Statement of Jeffrey Herrold# 19 Exhibit Statement of Andrew Solberg# 20 Exhibit Prisoner Control Plan (excerpts)# 21 Exhibit Statement of Captain Sharkey# 22 Exhibit Statement of Julie Abbate# 23 Exhibit MPD Manual on the Management of Mass Demonstrations 1986 revision# 24 Exhibit 24 DCMR section 705.1# 25 Exhibit Editorial, Mishandled Mass Arrests, The Washington Post# 26 Exhibit Editorial, A Bust in Pershing Park, The Washington Post, April 26, 2003# 27 Exhibit Editorial, It Takes a Judge, The Washington Post, September 13, 2003# 28 Exhibit Fernandez and Fahrenthold, Protesters and Others Arrested File Suit Against Police, District, The Washington Post, November 20, 2002# 29 Exhibit Statement released by D.C. Council Member Kathy Patterson# 30 Exhibit Fernandez and Fahrenthold, Police Consider Legal Action in Effort to Disrupt Protests, The Washington Post, September 21, 2002# 31 Exhibit Derrill Holly, Police Worried About Terrorists Using Protesters, Associated Press# 32 Exhibit Protest Leaders Denounce Police Planning, Associated Press# 33 Exhibit WTOP radio, Park Police Pitch In# 34 Exhibit MPD Citizen Advisory: IMF / World Bank Demonstrations, September 23, 2002# 35 Exhibit www.nbc4.com, Police Take Final Steps to Prepare for World Bank / IMF Protests, September 26, 2002# 36 Exhibit IMF Protests Met with Police Presence, The Washington Post, September 27, 2002# 37 Exhibit Arthur Santana, D.C. Council Probing Police Conduct in Protests, The Washington Post, April 29, 2003)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
77 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 69 Motion to Dismiss Portions of the COmplaint filed by the Metropolitan Police Department and the District of Columbia filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
78 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Enlarge Time Until November 21, 2003 Within Which to Have Filed Oppositions to Motions to Dismiss Filed by District of Columbia Defendants by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
79 MOTION to Consolidate Cases by D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Consolidating Cases for Discovery and Trial)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
MINUTE ORDER granting 78 Consent Motion for Extension of Time, nunc pro tunc, to File Plaintiffs' Opposition. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 25, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
80 ORDER denying without prejudice 32 Motion to Dismiss, denying without prejudice 67 Motion to Dismiss, denying without prejudice 68 Motion to Dismiss, denying without prejudice 69 Motion to Dismiss, finding as moot 79 Motion to Consolidate Cases. A Status hearing is scheduled for April 6, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One. Jones v. District of Columbia is dismissed without prejudice and removed from the active calendar of the Court. The cases are referred to Magistrate Judge Kay for the purpose of resolving discovery disputes. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 25, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/6/2004 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/25/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 30 of 141

12/04/2003 12/04/2003 12/04/2003 12/05/2003 12/05/2003
12/07/2003
12/08/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003 12/12/2003 12/17/2003 12/22/2003 12/29/2003

81 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. PETER NEWSHAM served on 11/24/2003, answer due 12/15/2003 (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
82 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Unopposed Enlargment)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
83 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Corrected) by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Corrected Order Granting Enlargement)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
84 NOTICE by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS of Filing of Prposed Order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Staying Discovery Against Defendants Having Asserted Qualified Immunity Defenses)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
85 NOTICE by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN Of Filing Text of Proposed Order Regarding Discovery Against the Defendants Who Assert Qualified Immunity in Their Individual Capacities (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
86 NOTICE by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 76 Memorandum in Opposition,,,,,,,,,,,,,, of Corrected Attachment 1 to the Opposition (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Attachment 1)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 12/07/2003)
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 82 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, and granting 83 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendants' Reply shall be filed by no later than December 22, 2003. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 8, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
87 ANSWER to Amended Complaint (Second) by D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS.(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
88 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, ANSWER to Complaint, ANSWER to Amended Complaint by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.(Shine, Edith) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
89 MOTION to Dismiss As It Pertains to Him or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment by PETER NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
90 NOTICE directing the court's attention to decision in Maryland v. Pringle by PETER NEWSHAM (td, ) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
91 REPLY Brief To Opposition and in Suuport of Motion to Diusmiss Or In The Alternative For Summary Judgment By Anthony A. Williams and by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
92 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Chief Mewsham's Motion to Dismiss by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 31 of 141

12/30/2003 12/31/2003 01/14/2004
01/22/2004
01/22/2004
01/26/2004 01/29/2004 01/29/2004 02/02/2004 02/05/2004

SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 12/29/2003)
ORDER granting 92 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss shall be filed by no later than January 14, 2004.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 30, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
93 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY AGAINST DEFENDANTS WHO ASSERT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES by ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
94 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Peter Newsham's Motion to Dismiss by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
95 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 89 Motion to Dismiss filed by Peter Newsham filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
96 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the District of Columbia's First Set of Discovery Requests by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Verheyden−Hilliard, Mara) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 94 Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition, and granting 96 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery Requests. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 26, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
97 ORDER setting forth instructions to counsel regarding Motions Hearing on immunity claims. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 29, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 3/22/2004 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
MINUTE ORDER adopting plaintiffs' proposed order at docket entry 85 and rejecting defendants' proposed order at 84 . It is hereby ordered that there shall be a stay of depositions, but not a stay of discovery, against Mayor Anthony A. Williams, Chief Charles H. Ramsey, and Chief Peter J. Newsham pending adjudication of the issue of qualified immunity. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 2, 2004. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to conflicts in the Court's schedule, the Court sua sponte continues the March 22, 2004 Motions Hearing on immunity issues to March 23, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 5, 2004. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 02/05/2004)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 32 of 141

02/05/2004 02/05/2004
02/09/2004
02/09/2004 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
02/18/2004

Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2004 10:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
98 MOTION to Amend/Correct Answer to Second Amended Complaint by D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Leave to Amend and Deeming Amended Answer Filed)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
99 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment On Grounds OIf Qualified Immuntiy by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Herrol;d Decl# 2 Exhibit Ramsey Decl# 3 Exhibit Solberg Decl# 4 Exhibit Solberg Statement# 5 Exhibit Burton Decl# 6 Exhibit Burton After Action Report# 7 Exhibit Prisoner Control Plan# 8 Exhibit MPD General Order# 9 Exhibit Jan 25 Report# 10 Exhibit Pavlik Decl# 11 Exhibit Klein Decl)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
100 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Defendants' Statement of Material Facts as to which they cintend there is no genuine Dispute by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Koger, Thomas) Modified on 2/10/2004 (td, ). (Entered: 02/09/2004)
101 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Brief)(Koger, Thomas) Modified on 2/10/2004 (td, ). (Entered: 02/09/2004)
DOCUMENT NUMBERS 100 and 101 have been Entered In Error and counsel has been advised to refile said documents as one document. (td, ) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
102 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Upon Claims Oertaining To Qualified Immunity by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 2 Exhibit Def Statement of Facts# 3 Exhibit Herrold Declaration# 4 Exhibit Ramsey Declaration# 5 Exhibit Solberg Decl# 6 Exhibit Solberg Statement# 7 Exhibit Hilton Burton Decl# 8 Exhibit Hilton Burton After Action Report# 9 Exhibit Prisoner Control Plan# 10 Exhibit MPD General Order# 11 Exhibit Jan 25 Report# 12 Exhibit MPD MassDemonstration Manual Excerpt# 13 Exhibit A/C Brian Jordan Decl# 14 Exhibit Pavlik Decl# 15 Exhibit Klein Decl# 16 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
103 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 102 Chief Ramsey and Mayor Williams Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, For Summary Judgment Filed on February 10, 2004 filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Statement of Material Facts# 2 Exhibit Index of Attachments# 3 Exhibit Att 1, MPD Manual for Mass Demonstrations and Responding to Civil Disturbances (1996 revision)# 4 Exhibit Ramsey Original Declaration# 5 Exhibit David Ho, "Police Arrest 649 During Capital Demonstrations Against Globalization, Other Causes," Associated Press, September 27, 2002# 6 Exhibit Lehrer Online Newshour (transcript), September 27, 2002# 7 Exhibit Jason Cherkis, "Boss Hogtie," The Washington City Paper, January 17 − 23, 2003# 8 Exhibit David A. Fahrenthold and David Nakamura, "Doubt Cast on Arrests of IMF Protesters," The Washington Post, February 27, 2003, B1# 9 Exhibit Manny Fernandez and Monte Reel, "Against War, a Peaceful March," The Washington Post, September 30, 2002# 10 Exhibit By a Washington Post Staff Writer, "Did D.C. Police Go Too Far? Legal Experts Debate Legality of Mass Arrests," October 1, 2002, B1# 11 Exhibit "USA: Activists Decry Police Tactics in Anti−Globalization Protests," Agence France Press, October 1, 2002# 12 Exhibit Carol D. Leonnig, "IMF Arrests Improper, Police Found," The Washington Post, September 13, 2003, B2# 13 Exhibit Manny Fernandez and David A. Fahrenthold, "Police Arrest Hundreds in Protests," The Washington Post, September 28, 2002 at A1# 14 Exhibit Carol Guzy, "I'll Tell You What's Wrong With This Picture," The Washington Post, May 7, 2000, B2# 15 Exhibit Confidential

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 33 of 141

02/18/2004
02/20/2004
02/23/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004

training document, "Video Treatment − MPD Training Tools − 6/18/01"# 16 Exhibit Att 14 − Final Report Relative to Complaints of Alleged Misconduct Made at the October 24, 2002 Hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Council of the District of Columbia Concerning IMF / World Bank Protests# 17 Exhibit Att 15 − Statement of Assistant Chief Peter Newsham# 18 Exhibit Att 16 − Statement of Jeffrey Herold# 19 Errata Att 17 − (Original) Statement of Andrew Solberg# 20 Exhibit Att 18 − Prisoner Control Plan, IMF Conference, Washington, D.C. September 26 − October 1, 2002 (excerpt)# 21 Exhibit Att 19 − Statement of Captain Sharkey# 22 Exhibit Att 20 − Statement of Julie Abbate# 23 Exhibit Att 21 − MPD Manual on the Management of Mass Demonstrations (1986 rev'n) (excerpts)# 24 Exhibit Att 22 − 24 DCMR Section 705.1# 25 Exhibit Att 23 − Editorial, "Mishandled Mass Arrests," The Washington Post, March 4, 2003# 26 Exhibit Att 24 − Editorial, "A Bust in Pershing Park," The Washington Post, April 26, 2003, A24# 27 Exhibit Editorial, "It Takes a Judge," The Washington Post, September 13, 2003, A20# 28 Exhibit Att 26 − Manny Fernandez and David A. Fahrenthold, "Protesters and Others Arrested File Suit Against Police, District," The Washington Post, November 20, 2002# 29 Exhibit Att 27 − Statement released by Council member Kathy Patterson, February 26, 2003# 30 Exhibit Att 28 − Manny Fernandez and David A. Fahrenthold, "Police Consider Legal Action in Effort to Disrupt Protests," The Washington Post, September 21, 2002, B1# 31 Exhibit Derrill Holly, "Police Worried About Terrorists Using Protesters, Associated Press (undated)# 32 Exhibit Att 30 − Associated Press, "Protest Leaders Denounce Police Planning."# 33 Exhibit Att 31 − WTOP.com, "Park Police Pitch In."# 34 Exhibit Att 32 − September 23, 2003, MPD Citizen Advisory: IMF/World Bank Demonstrations.# 35 Exhibit Att 33 − www.nbc4.com, "Police Take Final Steps to Prepare for World Bank / IMF Protests," September 26, 2002# 36 Exhibit Att 34 − "IMF Protests Met with Police Presence," The Washington Post, September 27, 2002# 37 Exhibit Att 35 − Arthur Santana, "D.C. Council Probing Police Conduct in Protests," The Washington Post, April 29, 2003, B3)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
104 MOTION for Extension of Time to Accept, as filed on February 18, 2004, Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment, Filed by Defendants Ramsey and Williams on February 10, 2004 by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
105 RESPONSE to District's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
106 REPLY in support of motion re 99 motion for summary judgment on qualifid immuntiy grounds filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
107 REPLY in support of motion re 102 Motion For Summary Judgment Pertaining To Qualified Immunity Issues (Amended ) filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
108 Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 107 Reply in Support, Supplemental Memorandum In Support of Motion For Summary Judgement Pertaining to Qualified Immunity Issues by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/24/2004)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 34 of 141

02/25/2004
02/26/2004 02/26/2004
03/03/2004 03/04/2004 03/18/2004 03/19/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 04/02/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004

109 NOTICE by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN Noting Relevant Supreme Court Decision in Groh v. Ramirez (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
110 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Motion For Extension To Accept As Filed, On Febrayray 18, 2004, Their Opposition To Summary Judgment Motion Pertaining To Qualified Immunity Issues Filed filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 98 Motion to Amend/Correct Answer to Second Amended Complaint; granting 104 Motion for Extension of Time to Accept, as filed on February 18, 2004, Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment; and granting 108 Motion to Amend/Correct Reply. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 26, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
111 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond To Plaintiffs' First Set Of Requests For The Production Of Documents by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 111 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond To Plaintiffs' First Set Of Requests For The Production Of Documents.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 4, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
112 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM from Plaintiffs Regarding Applicability of Groh v. Ramirez to the Motions to Dismiss Based on Qualified Immunity. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
MINUTE ORDER The Court sua sponte continues the March 23, 2004, Motions Hearing on immunity issues to April 6, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One, a previously scheduled status hearing.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 19, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
113 ENTERED IN ERROR.....SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM from District of Columbia Defendants In Response To Plaintiffs' Supplement Regarding Applicability Of Groh v. Ramirez. (Koger, Thomas) Modified on 4/1/2004 (jf, ). (Entered: 03/31/2004)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Document No. 113 was entered in error and counsel was instructed to re−file said pleading using the correct case number on the pleading and filing in the correct event category. (jf, ) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
114 RESPONSE To Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Applicability of Groh v. Ramirez by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
115 RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Supplement Regarding Applicability of Groh v. Ramirez filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
116 MOTION for Extension of Time to by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Shine, Edith) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
117 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 2 Exhibit Memorandum of points and authorities# 3 Exhibit Exh.1# 4 Exhibit Exh.2# 5 Exhibit Exh.3# 6 Exhibit Exh.4# 7 Exhibit Exh.5# 8 Exhibit Exh.6)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
118 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM (submission of materials received that relate to the qualified immunity defense) from Plaintiffs − − Supplementation of Materials Received that Relate to the Qualified Immunity Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 35 of 141

04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/06/2004 04/06/2004 04/08/2004 04/08/2004 04/16/2004
04/23/2004 04/23/2004
04/26/2004 04/27/2004 04/27/2004

Deposition of CDU Commander Jeffrey Herold (excerpts)# 2 Exhibit Interview/Deposition of Chief Michael Fitzgerald (excerpts)# 3 Exhibit Deposition of Peter Newsham (excerpts from statements in executive session to DC Council Judiciary Comm.)# 4 Exhibit Deposition of Chief Charles Ramsey (excerpts)# 5 Exhibit Testimony on video of Peter Newsham from DC Council hearings (excerpts))(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
120 NOTICE of filing of exhibit 5A to plaintiffs' supplementation of material sreceiced that relate to qualified immunity defenses by plaintiffs; Exhibit (videotape)(td, ) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
121 NOTICE of filing of exhibit 36 to plaintiffs' oppositons to motions to dismiss by plaintiffs; attachment (CD−ROM) (td, ) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 116 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery Requests, and granting 117 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery for the reasons stated in open court on April 6, 2004. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 6, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Hearing/Motion Hearing held on 4/6/2004 chambers to issue order (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) Modified on 4/27/2004 (clv, ). (Entered: 04/08/2004)
119 ORDER setting status hearing for May 7, 2004.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 8, 2004. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/7/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties are ORDERED to address the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's Opinion pertaining to qualified immunity in International Action Center v. United States of America, decided April 16, 2004, and available on that Court's website. Plaintiffs' submissions of no more than 15 pages shall be filed by no later than April 23, 2004; defendants' responses of no more than 10 pages shall be filed by no later than April 30, 2004; and plaintiffs' replies of no more than 5 pages shall be filed by no later than May 5, 2004. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 16, 2004. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
122 NOTICE by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA of Filing of Response to D.C Council Recommndations (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Response to Recommendations)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
123 MOTION for Extension of Time to File BRIEF REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF International Action Center, et al. v. United States, et al. TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ISSUE IN THIS CASE; AND TO FILE SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS RELATED TO THE SAME ISSUE by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
124 MINUTE ORDER granting 123 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 26, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
125 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees Interim by PETER NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points & Authorities# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Text of Proposed Order # 6 Certificate of Service)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
126 MEMORANDUM from Plaintiffs Regarding Applicability of International Action Center v. United States, Including Submission of Supplementary Material Related to Qualified Immunity. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit May 23, 2003 Memorandum Opinion, International Action Center v. United States, Civil Action No. 01−72 (GK)# 2 Exhibit Affidavit of Brian Becker, Co−Director, International Action Center# 3 Exhibit Face the Nation transcript, April 16, 2000 (interview with Mayor Anthony Williams)# 4 Exhibit Kathryn Sinzinger, "Patterson, Graham Seek MPD Inquiry," The Common

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 36 of 141

04/29/2004 04/30/2004
05/03/2004 05/07/2004
05/07/2004 05/07/2004 05/07/2004 05/14/2004
06/09/2004 06/14/2004 06/23/2004 07/07/2004 07/22/2004

Denominator, April 24, 2000# 5 Exhibit March 11, 2004 Report on Investigation of the MPD's Policy and Practice in Handling Demonstrations in the District of Columbia# 6 Exhibit Alan Sipress and Lyndsey Layton, "Mass Arrests Cap Second Day of Protests," The Washington Post# 7 Exhibit Carol Guzy, "I'll Tell You What's Wrong With This Picture," The Washington Post, May 7, 2000# 8 Exhibit MPD Commander Michael Radzilowski, "Get the Picture?" May 17, 2000 Letter to the Editor of Washington Post (defending arrest of Carol Guzy))(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
127 RESPONSE to Court's Minute Order of 4/16/04 filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
128 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Brief Addressing Application Of IAC Decision and Responding to Plaintiffs' IAC Biref and Supplementary Materials by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
129 MINUTE ORDER granting 128 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief. The brief shall be filed by no later than May 5, 2004.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 3, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 5/7/2004. Motion Hearing/argument set for 6/14/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
130 ORDER granting 125 Motion for Attorney Fees and setting forth further instructions to counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 7, 2004. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/14/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
131 RESPONSE TO INTERNATIONAL ACTION CENTER v. UNITED STATES by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Koger, Thomas) Modified on 5/10/2004 (cp, ). (Entered: 05/07/2004)
132 MOTION to Compel by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points of Authorities# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' 3.29.04 Letter# 4 Exhibit DC's First Document Requests# 5 Exhibit DC's First Interrogatories# 6 Exhibit DC's Second Interrogatories# 7 Exhibit J. Barham Dep Tr. Excerpt# 8 Exhibit DC's 3.23.04 letter# 9 Exhibit S. Young Dep Tr Excerpt)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting as unopposed 132 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 9, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Hearing/Argument held on 6/14/2004 Order to be issued (Court Reporter Don Jacobsen, Miller.) (clv, ) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
133 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for dates May 07, 2004; Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/27/2004)
134 MOTION for Protective Order by JOHN ASHCROFT, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/07/2004)
135 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition or Other Response to Federal Defendants' Motion for Protective Order by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/22/2004)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 37 of 141

07/22/2004 07/22/2004
07/23/2004 07/25/2004
07/25/2004
07/26/2004 07/27/2004 08/06/2004
08/10/2004 08/13/2004

MINUTE ORDER granting 135 Motion for Extension of Time, until August 6, 2004, to File Opposition or Other Response to Federal Defendants' Motion for Protective Order.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 22, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. Both plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel separately contacted chambers on July 22, 2004, to request a conference call regarding a discovery dispute. Accordingly, a conference call is scheduled for Monday, July 26, 2004, at 3:00 p.m. Counsel shall jointly call chambers at that time. If that time is not convenient for all counsel, counsel shall jointly submit three mutually convenient dates and times for the conference call.It is further ordered that counsel shall jointly or separately file a one page submission detailing the discovery dispute by no later than July 26, 2004, at 10:00 a.m.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 22, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
136 MEMORANDUM from District DefendantsPer July 22, 2004 Minute Order. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
137 NOTICE by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re Order,, Plaintiffs' Filing Per July 22, 2004 Minute Order (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/25/2004)
138 NOTICE by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re Order,, joint submission regarding availability pursuant to July 22, 2004 order (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/25/2004)
139 NOTICE of Appearance by Martha J. Mullen on behalf of D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Mullen, Martha) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
140 ORDER regarding discovery dispute.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 27, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
141 MOTION for Extension of Time to coordinate briefing between parties on the federal defendants' motion for protective order by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 141 Motion for Extension of Time to coordinate briefing between parties on the federal defendants' motion for protective order; the response shall be filed by August 13, 2004 and the reply shall be filed by August 27, 2004.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 10, 2004. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 08/10/2004)
142 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 134 MOTION for Protective Order filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 38 of 141

08/18/2004
08/18/2004 08/18/2004 08/19/2004

SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Plaintiffs' Proposed Protective Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/13/2004)
143 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Mandating that the Defendants Expunge the Arrest Records of Plaintiffs; Retrieve and Return All Arrest (And Derivative) Records to Plaintiffs; and Not Further Disseminate Such Records by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Exhibit (redacted attachment No. 1)# 4 Exhibit (redacted Attachment No. 2)# 5 Exhibit January 25, 2003, Report Relative to Complaints of Alleged Misconduct Made at the October 24, 2002, Hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Council of the District of Columbia, Concerning the IMF/World Bank protests# 6 Exhibit Jason Cherkis, The Washington City Paper, ?Boss Hogtie,? January 17, 2003# 7 Exhibit release documents for Jeffrey Barham# 8 Exhibit October 15, 2003 FBI Intelligence Bulletin No. 89# 9 Exhibit May 14, 2004 Department of Justice Press Release, ?Fact Sheet: National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan.?# 10 Exhibit November 8, 2001 California−based FBI−JTTF Terrorism Advisory# 11 Exhibit Eric Lichtblau, ?FBI Goes Knocking for Political Troublemakers,? The New York Times, August 16, 2004# 12 Exhibit Editorial, ?Interrogating the Protestors,? New York Times, August 17, 2004# 13 Affidavit Affidavit of Mark Jackson# 14 Exhibit Deposition of plaintiff Casey Legler)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
144 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Enjoining the District of Columbia From Arresting or Prosecuting Persons for Parading Without a Permit by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit MPD Memo, Oct. 10, 2002# 2 Exhibit MPD Memo, Oct. 1, 2002# 3 Exhibit Transcript of Captain Ralph McLean Interview, Nov. 5, 2003# 4 Exhibit Testimony of Peter Newsham# 5 Affidavit October 15, 2003 Declaration of Charles H. Ramsey# 6 Exhibit Carrie Johnson, ?Arrested Protesters Flood Superior Court,? The Legal Times, April 17, 2000# 7 Exhibit Deposition of Chief Charles Ramsey# 8 Exhibit Testimony of Lieutenant Jeffrey Herold# 9 Exhibit MPD Final Investigative Report# 10 Exhibit Chief Ramsey memorandum dated March 13, 2003# 11 Affidavit Affidavit of Mark Jackson# 12 Affidavit Deposition of Casey Legler# 13 Affidavit Affidavit of Brian Becker# 14 Exhibit Deposition of Nicole Prichard (Jeddaoui)# 15 Exhibit Deposition of Mark Jackson)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court sua sponte sets the following briefing schedule. Defendants shall file their responses to 143 Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Mandating that the Defendants Expunge the Arrest Records of Plaintiffs, Retrieve and Return All Arrest (And Derivative) Records to Plaintiffs; and Not Further Disseminate Such Records and 144 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Enjoining the District of Columbia From Arresting or Prosecuting Persons for Parading Without a Permit by no later than August 25, 2004, at 5:00 p.m.. Plaintiffs shall file their replies, if any, by no later than August 30, 2004, at 5:00 p.m..The Court will not extend the briefing schedule.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 18, 2004. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
151 REPLY re 143 in support of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction mandating that the defendants expunge the arrest records of plaintffs; retrieve and return all arrest and derivative records to plaintiffs and not further disseminate such records filed by plaintiffs; (SEALED) (td, ) (Entered: 08/26/2004)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 39 of 141

08/19/2004 08/23/2004 08/24/2004 08/24/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004 08/26/2004 08/26/2004
08/27/2004 08/30/2004
08/31/2004 09/01/2004

155 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . . ALREADY ON DOCKET SEE DOCKET NO. 134. . . .MOTION for Protective Order by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(td, ) Modified on 9/16/2004 (td, ). (Entered: 08/31/2004)
145 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief & Proposed Order by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amicus Brief)(Burgess, Joe) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. Defendants shall file their opposition, if any, to the Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief, by no later than August 31, 2004.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 24, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
146 RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Mandating that the Defendants Expunge the Arrest Records of Plaintiffs filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
147 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 143 filed by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John S. Hooks, Jr.# 2 Declaration of Monte C. Strait# 3 FBI letter)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 08/25/2004)
148 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 143 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Mandating Expungement filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/25/2004)
149 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 144 for Preliminary Injunction Prohibiting District of Columbia From Arresting for Parading Without a Permit filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Doe I and II Decisions# 2 Exhibit Herold Decl)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/25/2004)
150 MOTION for Order of Expungement by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Please see Document No. 147 for scanned images). (nmw, ) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
152 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 142 Memorandum in Opposition,, to Federal Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
161 NOTICE re: 149 of exhibits filed under seal in support of its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction mandating that the defendants expunge the arrest records of plaintiffs; retrieve and return all arrest and derivative records to plaintiffs; and not further disseminate such records by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; (SEALED) (td, ) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 152 Motion for Extension of Time, until September 3, 2004, to File Reply. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 27, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
153 REPLY to opposition to motion re 143 Motions for Preliminary Injunctions filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
154 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 145 Partial Opposition to Chanmg Plaintiffs' Motion to File as Amicus Curiae filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 145 Motion for Leave to File Amicus brief. There shall be no responses or replies to the brief. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 1, 2004. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 09/01/2004)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 40 of 141

09/01/2004 09/02/2004 09/02/2004 09/03/2004 09/07/2004
09/12/2004 09/13/2004 09/14/2004 09/16/2004 09/16/2004 09/16/2004 09/17/2004 09/20/2004 09/20/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004

156 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Smith, Peter) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
157 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Corn, Gary) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
158 MOTION for Hearing Upon Plaintiffs' Motion For A Preliminary Injunction Enjoining The District Of Columbia From Arresting Or Prosecuting Persons For Parading Without A Permit filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
159 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 142 Memorandum in Opposition,, by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
160 RESPONSE to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA?S MOTION REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
MINUE ORDER granting 159 Motion for Extension of Time, until September 13, 2004, to File Reply Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 12, 2004. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 09/12/2004)
162 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 155 MOTION for Protective Order by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 162 Consent Motion for Extension of Time, until September 17, 2004, to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 14, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 158 Motion for Hearing. A Motions Hearing on the Pending Motions for Preliminary Injunction is scheduled for September 27, 2004, at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom One. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 16, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 9/27/2004 11:30 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
MINUTE ORDER terminating 155 Motion for Protective Order, as the Motion is already docketed at 134 . The Motion at 134 remains pending.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 16, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
163 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 142 Memorandum in Opposition,, by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/17/2004)
164 REPLY to opposition to motion re 134 filed by JOHN ASHCROFT, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/20/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 163 Motion for Extension of Time, to and including September 20, 2004, to File Response/Reply to 142 Memorandum in Opposition.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 20, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/20/2004)
165 ORDER Denying 89 Defendant Newsham's Motion to Dismiss, Granting as to Defendant Williams and Granting In Part and Denying In Part as to Defendant Ramsey 102 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 24, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
166 MEMORANDUM OPINIONSigned by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 24, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/24/2004)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 41 of 141

09/27/2004 09/28/2004 09/29/2004
09/30/2004 09/30/2004
10/06/2004 10/08/2004
10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004
10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/27/2004 10/28/2004

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Motion Hearing held on 9/27/2004; chambers to issue an order (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
167 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by All Parties filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/28/2004)
168 ORDER denying as moot 144 Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin the District of Columbia From Arresting or Prosecuting Persons for Parading Without a Permit. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 29, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 167 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The discovery period is extended to February 28, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 30, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
169 RESPONSE to Federal Defendants Motion for an Order of Expungement filed by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, LORETTA MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, DEVON YATES, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Verheyden−Hilliard, Mara) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 2/28/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2004)
170 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 9/27/2004 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Court Reporter: Elaine A. Merchant. The public may view the document in the Clerk's Office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m, Monday through Friday. (bm) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
171 MEMORANDUM from Defendant Chief Charles H. Ramsey Concerning The Record On His Summary Judgment Motion Regarding Arrests At Vermont And K Streets. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/22/2004)
174 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 165 Order on Motion to Dismiss,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, 166 Memorandum & Opinion by PETER NEWSHAM. Filing fee $ 255, receipt number 128698. (td, ) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
172 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE OF APPEAL by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Koger, Thomas) Modified on 10/25/2004 (nmw, ). (Entered: 10/25/2004)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Document No. 172 was entered in error and will be refiled. (nmw, ) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
173 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 165 Order on Motion to Dismiss,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, by CHARLES H. RAMSEY. Filing fee $0. (nmw, ) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
175 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 165 Order on Motion to Dismiss,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, by CHARLES H. RAMSEY ; (government no fee) (td, ) Modified on 10/27/2004 (td, ). (Entered: 10/27/2004)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 173 Notice of Appeal (td, ) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 174 Notice of Appeal (td, ) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
176 MOTION to Stay Deposition by PETER NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points & Authorities# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Notices of Appeal)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. Defendant Newsham's 176 Motion to Stay Deposition until final resolution of the pending appeal is hereby GRANTED with respect to the Abbate and Chang plaintiffs, and GRANTED subject to the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 42 of 141

10/29/2004 10/29/2004 11/03/2004 12/03/2004 12/21/2004 01/07/2005 01/10/2005
01/12/2005 01/14/2005
01/17/2005 01/18/2005 01/18/2005
01/25/2005
02/01/2005

for good cause shown with respect to the Barham plaintiffs. Any Motion for Reconsideration shall be filed no later than Friday, November 12, 2004. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 28, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
USCA Case Number 04−5388 for 173 Notice of Appeal filed by plaintiffs. (td, ) Modified on 11/2/2004 (td, ). (Entered: 11/02/2004)
USCA Case Number 04−5389 for 174 Notice of Appeal filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (td, ) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
177 MOTION for Protective Order To Stay Deposition Discovery of Him Pending Resolution of His Interlocutory Appeals by CHARLES H. RAMSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Exhibit IAC Stay Order# 3 Supplement Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
178 NOTICE of Appearance by Lori S. Parris on behalf of D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ANTHONY WILLIAMS (Parris, Lori) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
179 ORDER regarding discovery. Motions for Protective Order due by 1/10/05; Responses by 1/21/05; Replies by 1/31/05. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 21, 2004. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
180 NOTICE of Appearance by Merrilyn Anne Onisko on behalf of all plaintiffs (Onisko, Merrilyn) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
181 MOTION for Protective Order by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, GALE A. NORTON, JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 4# 4 Exhibit 5# 5 Exhibit 6# 6 Exhibit 7# 7 Exhibit 8# 8 Exhibit 9# 9 Exhibit 10# 10 Exhibit 11# 11 Exhibit 13)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
182 NOTICE of Joinder in Defendants' Joint Motion for a Protective Order by PETER NEWSHAM (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
MINUTE ORDER regarding discovery. The discovery deadline is extended until 90 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled on the pending immunity claims of Chief Ramsey and Assistant Chief Newsham, and all other appeals of that issue have been exhausted. (Granting motion at docket entry 130 in case no. 02−2010). Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 14, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
183 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Detailed − Fees & Costs# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/17/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 183 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 18, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/18/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of plaintiffs' Motion [docket entry 132 in case no. 02−2010], it is hereby ORDERED that the Consent Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline [docket entry 130 in case no. 02−2010] and the resulting Minute Orders entered in all four cases on January 14, 2005 are hereby vacated. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 18, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/18/2005)
184 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for Protective Order by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
185 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) as to 173 Notice of Appeal filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY; It hereby ordered that the joint stipulation for dismissal of appeal be

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 43 of 141

02/22/2005
02/23/2005 02/23/2005 03/02/2005
03/02/2005 03/02/2005 03/04/2005
03/07/2005 03/08/2005 03/10/2005 03/15/2005

granted case numbers #04−7175, 04−7176 and 04−7190 are dismissed; USCA#04−5388 (jsc) (Entered: 02/09/2005)
186 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for Protective Order by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 02/22/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 186 Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for Protective Order. Plaintiffs' Opposition is due no later than March 4, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 23, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Responses to Motion for Protective Order due by 3/4/2005 (clv, ) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
187 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery By August 31, 2005 by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 187 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 2, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 8/31/2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
188 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for Protective Order by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 188 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Plaintiffs' Opposition to defendants' Motion for a Protective Order is due no later than March 14, 2005.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 7, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Responses to the motion for protective order due by 3/14/2005 (clv, ) (Entered: 03/08/2005)
189 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance of Special AUSA Gary Corn by GALE A. NORTON, JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
190 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM.

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 44 of 141

03/16/2005 03/16/2005
03/21/2005
03/21/2005 03/25/2005 03/28/2005 04/04/2005 04/04/2005 04/04/2005

(Onisko, Merrilyn) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 190 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 16, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/16/2005)
191 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 181 Def's Joint Motion for Protective Order filed by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1 Notice of Deposition March 17 2004# 2 Exhibit Ltr, PCJ to T Koger# 3 Exhibit Chang dep of Herold# 4 Exhibit Chang dep of Herold# 5 Exhibit Chang dep of Herold# 6 Exhibit DC Objections to 30(b)(6) topics# 7 Exhibit Ltr, CM to counsel# 8 Exhibit Ltr, TK to counsel# 9 Exhibit Ltr, CM to T Koger# 10 Exhibit Ltr, TK to C Messineo# 11 Exhibit Ltr, TK to C Messineo# 12 Exhibit Ltyr, CM to T Koger# 13 Exhibit Ltr, DS to all counsel# 14 Exhibit Ltr from T Koger# 15 Exhibit series of e−mails)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/16/2005)
192 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint,,, 16 Amended Complaint, by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit excerpts of deposition of Richard Murphy)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
193 MOTION to Quash the District's Defective "Offer of Judgment" by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
194 REPLY to opposition to motion re 181 Joint Motion for Protective Order filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Noticesof Deposition of Cathy Lanier and Jeffrey Herold# 2 Exhibit Amended Notice of Deposition of Michael Fitzgerald# 3 Exhibit PCJ Cover Letter and Notice of 12 Depositions# 4 Exhibit Chang Counsel e−mail)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
195 REPLY to opposition to motion re 181 filed by GALE A. NORTON, JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/28/2005)
196 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 193 Quashing, Or Declaring Void, The District's Defective "Offer Of Judgment" filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying Motion# 2 Exhibit January 11 2005 letter# 3 Exhibit March 16 2005 letter# 4 Exhibit Mary Canales Depositon Excerpt# 5 Exhibit March 21 2005 e−mail# 6 Exhibit USDC Notification of Filing of Motion To Quash)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
197 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 192 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint,,, 16 Amended Complaint, by GALE A. NORTON, JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
198 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 192 Leave To Amend Complaint tTo Remove Michael Lehach As An Individual Plaintiff In Barham, To Remove Devon Yates As A

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 45 of 141

04/05/2005 04/05/2005 04/06/2005 04/06/2005
04/11/2005
04/13/2005 04/14/2005
04/18/2005

Class representative, And To Add Richard Murphy As A Defendant In His Individual Capacity filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Denying Motion To Amend In Part# 2 Exhibit Consolidated Notice Of Deposition# 3 Exhibit Alliance Report & Recommendation)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 197 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as to 192 MOTION to Amend the Complaint. Federal Defendant's response due by April 6, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 5, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/05/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Federal Defendant's response due by 4/6/2005 (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/05/2005)
199 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 192 filed by GALE A. NORTON, JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
200 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14)(Onisko, Merrilyn) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
201 REPLY to opposition to motion re 193 Motion to Quash "Offer of Judgment" filed by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
202 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 200 Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To File Sur−Reply filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Parris, Lori) (Entered: 04/13/2005)
203 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 198 Memorandum in Opposition, to Pls' motion for leave to amend complaint to remove Michael Lehach as an individual plaintiff in Barham, to remove Devon Yates as a class representative, and to add Richard Murphy as a defendant in his individual capacity by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Onisko, Merrilyn) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
204 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 199 Memorandum in Opposition, 198 Memorandum in Opposition, to Plaintiffs' Leave to Amend Complaint to Remove Michael Lehach as an Individual Plaintiff, to Remove Devon Yates as a Class Representative, and to Add Richard Murphy as a Defendant in His Individual Capacity by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 46 of 141

04/18/2005
04/20/2005
04/21/2005 04/22/2005 04/22/2005 04/22/2005 05/02/2005
06/29/2005 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 07/08/2005 07/09/2005

ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Onisko, Merrilyn) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
205 NOTICE by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Onisko, Merrilyn) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
206 REPLY to opposition to motion re 192 Amend the Complaint filed by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4)(nmw, ) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
207 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 200 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order by GALE A. NORTON, JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 203 , 204 , 207 Motions for Extensions of Time to File. Federal defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur−reply shall be filed by 4/22/05. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 22, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Responses to the motion for leave to file a sur−reply due by 4/22/2005 (clv, ) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
208 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 200 , Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Sur−Reply, filed by GALE A. NORTON, JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
209 REPLY to opposition to motion re 200 Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply filed by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. The parties are directed to file, by no later than July 8, 2005, a joint report on the status of all outstanding discovery issues and recommendations for further proceedings in this case. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 29, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 7/8/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
210 NOTICE of Appearance by John Martin Faust on behalf of CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Faust, John) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
211 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Zetoony, David) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 211 Joint Motion for Extension of Time, up to and including July 13, 2005, to file the joint status report and recommendations for further

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 47 of 141

07/09/2005 07/11/2005
07/13/2005
07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/15/2005
07/19/2005 07/19/2005 07/29/2005
07/29/2005

proceedings. Signed by Emmet G. Sullivan on July 9, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/09/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report and recommendations for further proceedings due by 7/13/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/10/2005)
212 Consent MOTION to Extend Discovery to November 18, 2005 by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schember, Daniel) (Entered: 07/11/2005)
213 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file joint status report by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 213 Motion for Extension of Time, until July 15, 2005, to file joint status report and recommendations for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 14, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 7/15/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/16/2005)
214 STATUS REPORT by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, PETER NEWSHAM, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, GALE A. NORTON, JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 192 Motion to Amend Complaint. Upon careful consideration of plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint, and the responses and replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are directed to file an amended complaint consistent with this ruling by no later than July 29, 2005. The parties are further directed to file an updated joint proposal for the completion of discovery by no later than August 15, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 19, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 7/29/2005. Status Report due by 8/15/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
215 NOTICE , Filing of Third Amended Complaint by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM re Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,, (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
216 AMENDED COMPLAINT against ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY, PETER NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS,

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 48 of 141

08/01/2005 08/02/2005 08/02/2005 08/29/2005 08/31/2005
09/13/2005
09/13/2005 09/14/2005 09/14/2005

SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIESfiled by BRIAN MCATEER, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM.(td, ) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
217 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Joint Report on Further Proceedings and to Respond to the Amended Complaint by PETER NEWSHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 217 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. The parties shall file an updated joint proposal for the completion of discovery by no later than August 31, 2005. Defendants shall respond to the Amended Complaint by no later than September 30, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 2, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 9/30/2005. Joint Proposed Discovery due by 8/31/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
Summons (1) Issued as to RICHARD MURPHY for third amended complaint. (td, ) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
218 STATUS REPORT Concerning Joint Proposal for the Completion of Discovery by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, PETER NEWSHAM, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, MEAGHAN ENRIGHT, LEANNE LEE, ELIZABETH L. YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
219 NOTICE Regarding Mootness of Pending Motion for Protective Order 181 by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER re 182 Notice (Other) (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
220 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to RICHARD MURPHY served on 8/31/2005, answer due 10/31/2005. (Onisko, Merrilyn) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
221 MOTION for Hearing by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1)(Parris, Lori) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
MINUTE ORDER denying 221 Motion for Hearing. Upon consideration of the parties' status reports dated 7/15/05 and 8/31/05, and in the interests of judicial economy, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants' motion requesting a status conference in case nos. 02−2010, 02−2283, and 03−2005 is DENIED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file proposed orders for further discovery and for the conduct of further proceedings in each of the three cases by no later than September 19, 2005. Responses to these proposed orders will not be considered. Signed by Emmet G. Sullivan on September 14, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/14/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 49 of 141

09/14/2005 09/19/2005 09/19/2005
09/19/2005 09/20/2005 09/28/2005 09/29/2005 09/30/2005
09/30/2005 09/30/2005 09/30/2005 10/03/2005
10/06/2005 10/06/2005

proposed order regarding discovery and further proceedings due by 9/19/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
222 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order by CHARLES H. RAMSEY (Shellaway, Justin) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
223 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER re Order on Motion for Hearing,, (Martin, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
224 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
225 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order Regarding Discovery and Further Proceedings by PETER NEWSHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ANTHONY WILLIAMS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposer Roder ofr Discovery and Further Proceedings)(Parris, Lori) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
226 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by PETER NEWSHAM.(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
227 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ANTHONY WILLIAMS.(Parris, Lori) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
228 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Common Law Claims by ANTHONY WILLIAMS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 3 Statement of Facts Mayor Williams' Statement of Undisputed Facts# 4 Exhibit Exhibits for Statement of Undisputed Facts)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
229 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand Answer of Defendant Chief Charles H. Ramsey in his Individual Capacity Only [to Third Amended Complaint (#216)] by CHARLES H. RAMSEY.(Shellaway, Justin) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
230 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 3 Exhibit Statement of Undisputed Facts# 4 Exhibit Undisputed Facts Exhibits)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
231 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
232 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Defendant Metropolitan Police Department by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 231 Federal Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File response to the Amended Complaint. The response is due October 17, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 6, 2005. (GK, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 5/26/2006. Status Report due by 12/2/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 50 of 141

10/06/2005 10/06/2005
10/11/2005 10/12/2005
10/13/2005 10/17/2005 10/19/2005 10/19/2005
10/19/2005
10/20/2005 10/31/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005

Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 10/17/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
MINUTE ORDER GOVERNING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Upon consideration of the parties' joint status reports and proposed orders for the conduct of further proceedings in case nos. 02−2010, 02−2283, and 03−2005, it is hereby ORDERED that discovery in all three related cases is extended through May 26, 2006; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve any discovery disputes and, barring such resolution, shall contact Magistrate Judge Kay in an attempt to informally resolve any such dispute; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall advise the Court of any remaining discovery disputes and the need for the Court's intervention by no later than December 2, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 6, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
233 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Itemized Billing Statements# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 233 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. It is hereby Ordered that the District of Columbia shall pay the sum of $29,672.51 to Robert E. Deso, counsel for defendant Newsham, for legal fees and costs, pursuant to D.C. Code Sec. 5−115.04, for legal representation herein from April 16, 2005 through August 31, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 12, 2005. Associated Case: 1:02−cv−02010−EGS (GK, ) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 5/26/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
234 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Amended Complaint and Fairfax County's Cross−Claim by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
235 Amended ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ANTHONY WILLIAMS.(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
236 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responses to the District's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for William's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Common Law Claims by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Onisko, Merrilyn) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
ORDER granting 234 Federal Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Amended Complaint and Fairfax County's Cross−Claim. The response is due on October 31, 2005; and granting 236 Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to file responses to the District's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for William's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Common Law Claims. Plaintiffs' may file their responses on or before November 11, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 19, 2005. (GK, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 10/31/2005. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/11/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
237 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (nmw, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
238 MOTION for Summary Judgment by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Attachments: # 1 Murphy Deposition (relevant portions))(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
239 MOTION to Dismiss by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Please see Document No. 238 for scanned image). (nmw, ) Modified on 7/10/2007 (lcegs2). (Entered: 11/08/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 51 of 141

11/11/2005
11/16/2005 11/17/2005 11/22/2005 11/30/2005
12/01/2005 12/02/2005 12/05/2005
12/05/2005

240 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 239 MOTION to Dismiss, 228 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Common Law Claims, 230 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 238 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/11/2005)
ORDER. Granting 240 Joint Motion for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs to File Oppositions to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' opposition to defendants District of Columbia and Anthony Williams' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is due no later than November 30, 2005. Replies, if any, are due no later than December 9, 2005. Further, plaintiffs' opposition to the Federal Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is due no later than December 7, 2005. Replies, if any, are due no later than December 16, 2005. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 16, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/30/2005. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/9/2005. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
241 MOTION to Stay Depositions of Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre Harrison, and Michael Smith by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
242 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 228 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Common Law Claims, 230 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
243 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. Attorney Merrilyn Anne Onisko terminated. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
244 MOTION for Extension of Time to Bring Discovery Disputes to the Court's Attention by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
245 RESPONSE to 244 Federal Defendants' Unopposed Motion in Part for Enlargement of Time filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) Modified on 12/6/2005 (nmw, ). (Entered: 12/05/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 242 Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Oppositions to Defendant District of Columbia's and Anthony Williams' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment. It is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs' oppositions are due January 6, 2006. Further, granting 244 Federal Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time for Parties to Advise the Court of Discovery Disputes. The parties are hereby ordered to advise the court of any remaining discovery disputes and the

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 52 of 141

12/05/2005 12/06/2005 12/07/2005
12/12/2005 12/15/2005
12/15/2005 12/22/2005 12/22/2005 12/23/2005

need for the court's intervention by no later than January 31, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 5, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's response to Motions for Partial Summary Judgment due by 1/6/2006. (cdw) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
246 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 241 filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
247 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 238 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 247 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. It is hereby ordered that the plaintiffs' opposition is to be filed no later than February 6, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 12, 2005. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
248 MOTION to Compel Against Peter Newsham by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit 1 − Letter from Deso 11.3.05# 3 Exhibit 2 − Response to Req for Prod# 4 Exhibit 3 − Letter from Brookins−Hudson 10.6.05# 5 Exhibit 4 − Letter from Deso 11.22.05# 6 Exhibit 5 − Email from Messineo 7.15.05 1:23# 7 Exhibit 6 − Email from Koger 7.15.05 12:44# 8 Exhibit 7 − Email from Koger 7.15.05 1:45# 9 Exhibit 8 − Letter from Messineo 9.21.05# 10 Exhibit 9 − Email from Kim 10.5.05# 11 Exhibit 10 − Email from Kim 10.12.05# 12 Exhibit 11 − Email from Koger 10.12.05# 13 Exhibit 12 − Email from Koger 10.12.05 3:59# 14 Exhibit 13 − Email from Messineo 10.12.05 4:19# 15 Exhibit 14 − Email from Koger 10.12.05 4:30# 16 Exhibit 15 − Email from Koger 10.12.05 4:37# 17 Exhibit 16 − Email from Messineo 10.12.05 4:55# 18 Exhibit 17 − Email from Onisko 10.31.05# 19 Exhibit 18 − Letter from Messineo 11.9.05# 20 Exhibit 19 − Plaintiffs' First Req for Prod# 21 Exhibit 20 − Letter from Koger 10.22.05)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for Discovery Disputes. (jsc) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
249 Memorandum in opposition to re 248 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
250 MOTION to Stay Discovery in Three Related Cases Pending Resolution of Chang Plaintffs' Motion to Disqualify OAG filed by Executive Assistnt Chief Michael J. Fitzgerald, Assistant Chief Brian Jordan, Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre Harrison, Micjael Smith, Chief Charles H. Ramsey in his official capacity only and by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Supplement Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court having been advised that certain counsel in this matter requested a telephonic status conference to address a discovery issue involving a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, it is requested that the attorneys who will participate in such telephonic status conference initiate the conference by jointly contacting chambers, at

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 53 of 141

12/27/2005
01/03/2006 01/05/2006 01/06/2006
01/06/2006
01/06/2006 01/09/2006 01/09/2006 01/10/2006
01/11/2006

202−354−3030, on January 4, 2006, at 2 pm. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 12/23/05. (DM) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
251 REPLY to opposition to motion re 248 Motion to Compel Against Peter Newsham filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
MINUTE ORDER. It is hereby ordered that plaintiffs' response to the District defendants' motion to stay discovery is due no later than January 20, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 3, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 1/20/2006 (clv, ) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
252 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 228 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Common Law Claims, 230 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
253 Consent MOTION for Discovery to Establish Briefing Schedule for Discovery Issue Related to the 30(b)(6) Deposition of the District of Columbia by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 253 Consent Motion to Establish a Briefing Schedule for Discovery Issue Relating to Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 01/06/06. (DM) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 252 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. It is hereby ordered that plaintiffs' oppositions to defendant District of Columbia's and Williams' motions for partial summary judgment are due no later than January 13, 2006, and defendants' replies, if any, are due no later than February 15, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 9, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 1/13/2006 Replies due by 2/15/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
254 STIPULATION of Dismissal of common law false imprisonment claims against Mayor Williams by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
MINUTE ORDER approving 254 Plaintiffs' Stipulation of Dismissal. The plaintiffs' common law false imprisonment claims against Anthony Williams are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 11, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/11/2006)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 54 of 141

01/11/2006 01/13/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/18/2006
01/20/2006 01/23/2006

255 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 248 MOTION to Compel Against Peter Newsham filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
256 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 230 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 256 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 256 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 230 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Responses due by 1/18/2006 Replies due by 2/21/2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 17, 2006. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/18/2006. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 2/21/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
257 Memorandum in opposition to re 230 DC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Statement of Genuine Issues# 2 Exhibit 1 − Dep of District of Columbia (Lanier) in Barham case# 3 Exhibit 2 − Dep of Herrold in Barham case# 4 Exhibit 3 − Dep of Lanier in Barham case# 5 Exhibit 4 − Dep of Acosta in Alliance case# 6 Exhibit 5 − Dep of District of Columbia (Herrold) in Alliance case# 7 Exhibit 6 − Dep of Broadbent in Alliance case# 8 Exhibit 7 − Dep of Herrold in Alliance case# 9 Exhibit 8 − Dep of Lanier in Alliance case# 10 Exhibit 9 − Dep of Ramsey in Alliance case# 11 Exhibit 10 − MPD General Order# 12 Exhibit 11 − Dep of Passacantando# 13 Exhibit 12 − Djeddaoui Affidavit# 14 Exhibit 13 − Casey Legler Affidavit# 15 Exhibit 14 − Norton Affidavit# 16 Exhibit 15 − Wood Affidavit# 17 Exhibit 16 − Canales Affidavit# 18 Exhibit 17 − Swanson Affidavit# 19 Exhibit 18 − Phelan Affidavit# 20 Exhibit 19 − Durham Affidavit# 21 Exhibit 20 − Young Affidavit# 22 Exhibit 21 − Prisoner Control Plan# 23 Exhibit 22 − Dep of Barham# 24 Exhibit 23 − Dep of Garcia−Spitz# 25 Exhibit 24 − Dep of Jackson# 26 Exhibit 25 − Dep of Djeddaoui# 27 Exhibit 26 − Dep of Young)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
258 Memorandum in opposition to re 250 Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Disqualify OAG filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
259 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Bring Discovery Disputes to the Magistrate Judge's Attention by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 01/23/2006)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 55 of 141

01/25/2006 01/26/2006 01/26/2006 01/30/2006 02/01/2006 02/02/2006 02/03/2006
02/07/2006
02/10/2006
02/15/2006 02/16/2006

260 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 258 Memorandum in Opposition, by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Parris, Lori) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 259 Federal Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Court's October 6, 2005 Order. The response is now due on February 28, 2006. Further, granting 260 Defendant District of Columbia's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. The reply is now due January 30, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 26, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 2/28/2006 Replies due by 1/30/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
261 REPLY to opposition to motion re 250 Stay Discovery In Three Related Cases Pending Disposition Of Motion To Disqualify OAG filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
262 NOTICE of Filing of Notice of Appeal on Related Issue by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Parris, Lori) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
263 MOTION for Protective Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
264 MOTION to Compel Production of Properly Prepared Rule 30(b)(6) Deponent to Testify With the Collective Knowledge of the District of Columbia Municipality by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in support# 3 Exhibit 1 − Alliance Rule 30(b)(6) Depo excerpt# 4 Exhibit 2 − IAC RUle 30(b)(6) Depo Excerpt# 5 Exhibit 3 − Cross Motion in chang# 6 Exhibit 4 − Subpoena to Cheh# 7 Exhibit 5 − objections to notice of deposition# 8 Exhibit 6 − Council Report part 1# 9 Exhibit 7 − Council Report part 2# 10 Exhibit 8 − First Am Act − proceedings# 11 Exhibit 9 − Stipulation of Dismissal)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
265 NOTICE (Praecipe) by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER re 239 MOTION to Dismiss (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
266 ERRATA to Plaintiffs' Partial Opposition to DC's Motion to Stay Discovery by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
267 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply To Opposition To District Of Columbia's 230 Motion For Partial Summary Judgment by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) Modified on 2/16/2006 (lc, ). (Entered: 02/15/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 267 Defendant District of Columbia's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. It is due no later than March 16, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 16, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/16/2006)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 56 of 141

02/16/2006 02/27/2006
02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 03/01/2006 03/02/2006 03/03/2006
03/06/2006
03/08/2006

Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 3/16/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
268 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 239 MOTION to Dismiss, 238 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 268 Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Plaintiffs are to file their opposition by no later than March 3, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 28, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 3/3/2006 (clv, ) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
269 MOTION for Extension of Time to Enlarge The Time To Present Discovery Disputes To Magistrate Judge Kay by CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Parris, Lori) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
270 ORDER granting 241 Motion to Stay the Taking of Depositions of B. DiGirolamo, A. Harrison and M. Smith, and 250 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 1, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 269 Partial Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to Present Discovery Disputes. It is hereby ordered that the parties are to submit their discovery disputes to Magistrate Judge Kay 60 days after the resolution of the Chang plaintiffs' motion to disqualify the Office of the Attorney General. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 2, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
271 Memorandum in opposition to re 239 Federal Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts # 2 Exhibit 1 − Testimony of Newsham in Executive Session# 3 Exhibit 2 − Murphy depo# 4 Exhibit 3 − DC Council Oversight Investigation testimony# 5 Exhibit 4 − Barham Appeal Slip Op# 6 Exhibit 5 − Newsham declaration# 7 Exhibit 6 − Murphy declaration# 8 Exhibit 7 − Killmon order# 9 Exhibit 8 − American Heritage definition# 10 Exhibit 9 − webster definition# 11 Exhibit 10 − Newsham Opening Appellate Brief# 12 Exhibit 11 − MPD Newsroom announcement# 13 Exhibit 12 − MPD Investigation interview with Murphy# 14 Exhibit 13 − MPD General Order# 15 Exhibit 14 − Prisoner Control Plan# 16 Exhibit 15 − Gardner depo# 17 Exhibit 16 − under seal# 18 Exhibit 17 − Rice depo# 19 Exhibit Norton affidavit# 20 Exhibit 19 − Falk affidavit# 21 Exhibit 20 − Young affidavit# 22 Exhibit 21 − Ress affidavit# 23 Exhibit 22 − arrest spreadsheet# 24 Exhibit 23 − Wohlberg depo# 25 Exhibit 24 − Norton Responses to 1st Int# 26 Exhibit 25 − Washington Post article# 27 Exhibit 26 − Jackson affidavit# 28 Exhibit 27 − under seal)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
272 NOTICE of Bulky Exhibit by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER re 271 Memorandum in Opposition,,,,,, (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
273 NOTICE Praecipe Concerning Briefing of Motions for Protective Order and to Compel Upon Plaintiffs' Notioce of Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 57 of 141

03/09/2006
03/10/2006
03/10/2006 03/13/2006 03/14/2006 03/15/2006 03/15/2006 03/16/2006 03/17/2006 03/17/2006 03/22/2006 04/05/2006 04/06/2006 04/13/2006

PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
274 Consent MOTION to Seal (File Exhibits Under Seal) by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 274 Consent Motion to File Under Seal. Plaintiffs' exhibits 16 and 27 of their Opposition to Federal Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment are to be filed under seal. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 10, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
276 NOTICE of filing of Exhibit 16 and 27 by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 271 Memorandum in opposition to re 239 Federal Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss (jf, ) (FILED UNDER SEAL). Modified on 3/15/2006 (jf, ). (Entered: 03/15/2006)
275 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 238 MOTION for Summary Judgment by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
279 USCA JUDGMENT (certified copy) as to 173 Notice of Appeal filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY; It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in these causes be affirmed in part and the appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in part; USCA#04−5388 (jsc) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 275 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Federal Defendants are ordered to file its reply in support of its dispositive motion by no later than April 21, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 15, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Dispositive Motions due by 4/21/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
277 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to to Repley to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defenant District of Columbia's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 277 Defendant District of Columbia's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. The reply is due no later than March 22, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 17, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 3/22/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
278 REPLY to opposition to motion re 230 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
280 NOTICE of Change of Address by Carl L. Messineo (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
281 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Attorney Lori S. Parris terminated. (Parris, Lori) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
282 NOTICE (Praecipe) by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS,

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 58 of 141

04/21/2006 04/25/2006 04/25/2006 05/04/2006
05/05/2006 05/09/2006
05/10/2006 05/10/2006 05/16/2006 05/16/2006 05/31/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/09/2006

LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER re 270 Order on Motion to Stay, (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
283 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 239 MOTION to Dismiss, 238 MOTION for Summary Judgment by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 283 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Federal defendants' reply is due no later than May 10, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 25, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 5/10/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
284 STIPULATION of Dismissal by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
MINUTE ORDER approving the 284 stipulation of dismissal. The claims set forth in Count III of plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 5, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
285 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Order (Joint and Consent Motion for Correction of Clerical Mistake in the Approval of Voluntary Dismissal of Certain Claims, or, in the Alternative, to Amend the Judgment or Order Dismissing Plaintiffs' Claims Advanced in Count III of the Third Amended Complaint by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Stipulation of Dismissal# 2 Exhibit 2 − Minute Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
286 ORDER granting 285 Joint Motion to Amend/Correct the May 5, 2006 Minute Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 10, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
287 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 238 MOTION for Summary Judgment by ALBERTO GONZALES. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 287 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Federal defendants' reply is due no later than May 31, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 16, 2006. (lcegs2) Modified on 5/17/2006 (lcegs2). (Entered: 05/16/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 5/31/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
288 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 238 MOTION for Summary Judgment by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 288 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Federal Defendants' reply is due no later than June 9, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 2, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 6/9/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
289 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 239 MOTION to Dismiss, 238 MOTION for Summary Judgment by GALE A. NORTON,

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 59 of 141

06/13/2006 06/13/2006 06/13/2006 06/15/2006
06/16/2006 06/19/2006 08/18/2006 08/22/2006 09/28/2006
10/05/2006 10/05/2006 10/06/2006 10/30/2006
12/12/2006 12/22/2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 289 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Federal defendants' reply is now due no later than June 13, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 13, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 6/13/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
290 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 239 MOTION to Dismiss, 238 MOTION for Summary Judgment by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
291 NOTIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
292 ORDER regarding motions for extension of time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 16, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
293 REPLY to opposition to motion re 239 MOTION to Dismiss, 238 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Genuine Issues)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 237 Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 18, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 11/7/2006. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the fact that no response has been filed, 228 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Common Law Claims is granted as unopposed. Further, 248 Motion to Compel Against Peter Newsham, 263 Motion for Protective Order, and 264 Motion to Compel Production of Properly Prepared Rule 30(b)(6) Deponent are denied without prejudice to refiling once the stay of discovery has been lifted in this case. See Court's Order, Mar.1, 2006. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 28, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
294 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation and staying case pending further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 5, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
Case Stayed (clv, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Mediation to conclude by 1/5/2007. Status Report due by 1/12/2007. Status Conference set for 1/17/2007 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
NOTICE of Order in related case. The parties are hereby notified that an order has been issued in Diamond, et al. v. District of Columbia, Civ. Action No. 03−2005. The parties in the Diamond case have been ordered to join in mediation with the parties in the Chang (Civ. Action No. 02−2010) and Barham (Civ. Action No. 02−2283) cases. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 30, 2006. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
295 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Phillips, Cyrus) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
296 CONSENT ORDER directing the District of Columbia shall pay the sum of $13,245.82 to Robet Deso, counsel for defendant Newsham, for legal fees and costs, pursuant to D.C. Code 5−115.04, for legal representation herein from January 1, 2006 through October 31, 2006.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/21/06. (clv, )

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 60 of 141

01/04/2007 01/05/2007 01/12/2007
01/16/2007 01/16/2007 01/17/2007 01/17/2007 01/18/2007
01/22/2007 02/28/2007 03/23/2007 03/24/2007 05/15/2007 05/18/2007

(Entered: 12/22/2006)
MINUTE ORDER extending time to complete mediation until January 9, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 4, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Mediation to conclude by 1/9/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
297 STATUS REPORT Pursuant To Court's October 5, 2007 Order, Filed Jointly by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, PETER NEWSHAM, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
298 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
299 STATUS REPORT by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 1/17/2007. (Court Reporter Elaine Merchant.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 298 Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report. The Status Report submitted on January 16, 2007 is accepted as filed. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 17, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
300 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order Resolving District of Columbia's Motion for a Protective Order regarding Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (#263) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Properly Prepared Rule 30(b)(6) Deponent to Testify with Collective Knowledge of the District of Columbia Municipality (#263) by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER, ALBERTO GONZALES (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
301 CONSENT ORDER regarding the deposition of the defendant, District of Columbia.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/19/07. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
302 NOTICE of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit offer of judgment)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
303 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Itemized Billing Statement# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
304 ORDER granting 303 Eighth Consent Motion of Defendant Newsham for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 24, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/24/2007)
305 NOTICE of Change of Address by Carl L. Messineo (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
306 NOTICE Joint Praecipe Regarding Accepted Offer of Judgment by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BRIAN MCATEER (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 05/18/2007)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 61 of 141

05/22/2007
05/23/2007
05/25/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/20/2007
06/27/2007 06/27/2007 07/06/2007 07/09/2007

MINUTE ORDER. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs Jeffrey Barham, Laury Saligman, Brian McAteer, and Miles Swanson and against defendant District of Columbia in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in 302 the accepted Offer of Judgment and Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs' claims against the federal defendants in this case are unaffected by the judgment. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 22, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
307 Pursuant to Rule 68 of the FRCP and the Offer of Judgment and Acceptances of Offer of Judgment [Dkt. No. 302] filed by plaintiffs Jeffrey Barham, Laury Saligman, Brian McAteer, and Miles Swanson, JUDGEMENT is entered in favor of the above named plaintiffs and against defendant District of Columbia in the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) per plaintiff plus his or her reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/22/07. (mpt, ) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
308 NOTICE of Filing by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY re 293 Reply to opposition to Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Murphy Deposition Transcript Pages)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
309 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Enlargement of Time Within Which to Provide Itemization by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
310 MOTION for Extension of Time by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (See Docket Entry 309 to view document). (nmw, ) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 309 310 Motion for Attorneys' Fees and For Enlargement of Time Within Which to Provide Itemization on behalf of Plaintiffs Jeffrey Barham, Brian McAteer, Laury Saligman and Miles Swanson. Plaintiffs shall file a statement and itemization of fees by no later than July 6, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 7, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Statement and Itemization of fees due by 7/6/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
311 MOTION to Lift Stay of Discovery by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
312 ORDER granting 311 plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay; denying without prejudice 193 plaintiffs' Motion to Quash the District's Defective Offer of Judgment; denying without prejudice 230 District of Columbia's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; setting forth further instruction to counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 27, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 11/16/2007.,Status Report due by 11/30/2007.,Status Conference set for 12/12/2007 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
313 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Itemization of Fees by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 313 Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Itemization of Fees on Behalf of Plaintiffs Jeffrey Barham, Brian McAteer, Laury Saligman and Miles Swanson. Plaintiffs shall file a statement and itemization of fees by no later than August 20, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 9, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/09/2007)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 62 of 141

07/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/13/2007
07/16/2007 07/16/2007
08/20/2007 08/21/2007
08/21/2007 08/23/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007
08/24/2007

314 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Consent Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
315 Consent MOTION for Order by PETER NEWSHAM (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
316 ORDER denying 238 239 Federal Defendants Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 10, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
317 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 10, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
318 ORDER granting 314 315 Ninth Consent Motion of Defendant Newsham for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 10, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
319 Unopposed MOTION for Order of Substitution by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Statement and Itemization of Fees Due by 8/20/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
320 ORDER granting 319 Motion to Substitute Party and directing Clerk of Court to substitute Mayor Fenty in his official capacity for former Mayor Williams in his official capacity and Chief Lanier in her official capacity for former Chief Ramsey in his official capacity. Ramsey shall remain a defendant in his individual capacity. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 16, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
321 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Itemization of Attorneys Fees by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 321 Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Itemization of Fees on Behalf of Plaintiffs Barham, McAteer, Saligman, and Swanson. The itemization of fees is due no later than September 21, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 21, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Itemization of Fees due by 9/21/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
322 NOTICE of Appearance by Jayme Kantor on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Kantor, Jayme) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
323 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
324 Consent MOTION for Order for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
325 ORDER granting 323 324 Tenth Consent Motion of Defendant Newsham for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 24, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
326 MOTION for Discovery Propounded by Defendants, Newsham, Ramsey and the District of Columbia to Class Members by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Interrogatories# 2 Points & Authorities# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
327 ENTERED IN ERROR......MOTION for Order to Propound Limited Discovery to Class Members by PETER NEWSHAM (Deso, Robert) Modified on 8/27/2007 (jf, ). (Entered: 08/24/2007)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 63 of 141

08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007
08/27/2007 08/31/2007 09/04/2007 09/04/2007
09/05/2007 09/05/2007 09/07/2007
09/12/2007
09/13/2007 09/14/2007

328 NOTICE of Appearance by Leah Brownlee Taylor on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Brownlee Taylor, Leah) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
329 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Depose Former Chief Ramsey and Assistant Chief Newsham by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 329 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to take the depositions of Ramsey and Newsham. As stated in the Court's August 21, 2007 Order in the Chang case, Civ. Action No. 02−2010, the parties shall have until September 28, 2007 to depose Newsham and Ramsey. All other deadlines remain unchanged. In their joint report and recommendation for further proceedings due on November 30, the parties shall provide a briefing schedule for any post−discovery motions they wish to file. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 24, 2007. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 327 MOTION for Order to Propound Limited Discovery to Class Members was entered in error and counsel was instructed not to file Proposed Order(s) using the Motion(s) category.(jf, ) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
330 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle Nicole Johnson on behalf of GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY (Johnson, Michelle) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 11/30/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
331 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 316 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Dismiss, 317 Memorandum & Opinion by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 331 Notice of Appeal, (jf, ) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
332 ORDER limiting depositions of Newsham and Ramsey to two six−hour days per deponent. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 5, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
333 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 327 MOTION for Order to Propound Limited Discovery to Class Members, 326 MOTION for Discovery Propounded by Defendants, Newsham, Ramsey and the District of Columbia to Class Members by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, NICOLE PRICHARD, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 333 Plaintiffs' Partial Consent Motion for Enlargement to Allow a Consolidated Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Propound Limited Written Discovery to Class Members. The Federal Defendants shall file any motion to propound written discovery from plaintiff class members by no later than September 14, 2007. Plaintiffs shall file a response to 326 Defendants' Motion to Propound Limited Written Discovery to Class Members along with a response to any motion filed by the Federal Defendants by no later than September 28, 2007. Any reply by the District of Columbia, Newsham, Ramsey or the Federal Defendants shall be filed by no later than October 5, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 12, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 9/14/2007.,Responses due by 9/28/2007,Replies due by 10/5/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
334 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Federal Defendants' Motion to Propound Written Discovery from Plaintiff Class Members by GALE A. NORTON,

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 64 of 141

09/18/2007
09/18/2007 09/20/2007 09/21/2007 09/21/2007 09/21/2007 09/24/2007 09/27/2007
09/28/2007 10/01/2007
10/02/2007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD MURPHY (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 334 Federal Defendants' Unopposed Brief Motion for Enlargement of Time. The Federal Defendants shall file any motion to propound written discovery from plaintiff class members by no later than September 21, 2007. Plaintiffs shall file a response to 326 Defendants' Motion to Propound Limited Written Discovery to Class Members along with a response to any motion filed by the Federal Defendants by no later than October 5, 2007. Any reply by any of the defendants shall be filed by no later than October 12, 2007. Signed by Emmet G. Sullivan on September 18, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 9/21/2007.,Responses due by 10/5/2007,Replies due by 10/12/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
USCA Case Number 07−5305 for 331 Notice of Appeal, filed by ALBERTO GONZALES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD MURPHY, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, GALE A. NORTON. (jf) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
335 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Itemization of Fees by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
336 MOTION for Discovery , Limited, of Class Members by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Proposed Interrogatories)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 335 Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Itemization of Fees on Behalf of Plaintiffs Barham, McAteer, Saligman, and Swanson. The itemization of fees is due no later than December 7, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 21, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Itemization of fees due by 12/7/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
337 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Take the Deposition of Defendant Peter Newsham by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, PETER NEWSHAM, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 337 Joint Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Take the Deposition of Defendant Peter Newsham. Newsham's second day of deposition shall occur no later than October 4, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 28, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
338 MOTION to Compel the Production of Running Reumes and Recorded Police Channel Communications by the District of Columbia by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15# 17 Exhibit 16a# 18 Exhibit 16b# 19 Exhibit 16c# 20 Exhibit 16d# 21 Exhibit 16e# 22 Exhibit 17# 23 Exhibit 18a# 24 Exhibit 18b# 25 Exhibit 19# 26 Exhibit 20# 27 Exhibit 21)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
339 NOTICE (Supplement to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Production of Running Resumes and Recorded Police Channel Communications by the District of Columbia by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 65 of 141

10/03/2007
10/04/2007 10/05/2007 10/05/2007
10/12/2007 10/15/2007 10/16/2007 10/17/2007 10/17/2007 10/19/2007

LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM re 338 MOTION to Compel the Production of Running Reumes and Recorded Police Channel Communications by the District of Columbia (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
340 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Take the Deposition of Peter Newsham by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 340 plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Take the Deposition of Peter Newsham. Newsham's deposition shall occur no later than November 16, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 4, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: deposition of Peter Newsham shall take place by 11/16/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
341 Memorandum in opposition to re 336 MOTION for Discovery , Limited, of Class Members, 326 MOTION for Discovery Propounded by Defendants, Newsham, Ramsey and the District of Columbia to Class Members filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Newsham testimony# 2 Exhibit 2 − testimony on 2−195 by MPD part 1 of 2# 3 Exhibit 2b − testimony on 2−195 by MPD part 2.pdf# 4 Exhibit 3 − Council Report 2−195 part 1 of 6# 5 Exhibit 3b − Council Report 2−195 part 2# 6 Exhibit 3b − Council Report 2−195 part 2# 7 Exhibit 3d − Council Report 2−195 part 4# 8 Exhibit 3e − Council Report 2−195 part 5# 9 Exhibit 3f − Council Report 2−195 part 6# 10 Exhibit 4 − Ramsey dep# 11 Exhibit 5 − DC 30b6 dep (Burke))(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
342 REPLY to opposition to motion re 326 MOTION for Discovery Propounded by Defendants, Newsham, Ramsey and the District of Columbia to Class Members filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
343 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 338 MOTION to Compel the Production of Running Reumes and Recorded Police Channel Communications by the District of Columbia By Two Days by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 343 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 338 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Production of Running Resumes and Recorded Police Channel Communications by the District of Columbia. Defendant's Response shall be filed no later than October 17, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 16, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 10/17/2007 (clv, ) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
344 Memorandum in opposition to re 338 MOTION to Compel the Production of Running Reumes and Recorded Police Channel Communications by the District of Columbia filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh.1.George Crawford Decl# 2 Exhibit Exh.2.9.27.02.Intell Running Resume.1# 3 Exhibit 9.27.02.Intell Running Resume.2# 4 Errata 9.27.02 UC.Report# 5 Exhibit Exh.5.Koger.Messineo.Tangled Tape email)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
345 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Chief of Police, MPD) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/19/2007)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 66 of 141

10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007
10/24/2007
10/24/2007
10/30/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 10/31/2007 11/02/2007 11/06/2007 11/08/2007

346 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Chief of Police, MPD) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
347 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Chief of Police, MPD) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
348 Joint MOTION for Order Compelling Production of Information for the Purpose of Service of Process and To Protect Against Release and Use of Such Information Excepot as Specified by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 345 First Consent Motion of Defendant Ramsey for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees; granting 346 Second Consent Motion of Defendant Ramsey for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees; and granting 347 Third Consent Motion of Defendant Ramsey for Approval of Payment of Interim Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 24, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
349 REPLY to opposition to motion re 338 MOTION to Compel the Production of Running Reumes and Recorded Police Channel Communications by the District of Columbia filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Council Report# 2 Exhibit 2 − Special Services Command Running Resume)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
350 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
351 ORDER granting 338 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Production of Running Resumes and Recorded Police Channel Communications. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 30, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
352 ORDER granting 348 Joint Motion to Compel Production of Addresses and Other Information Related to Arresting Officers. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 30, 2007.(lcegs2) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 350 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees by Peter Newsham.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 31, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
353 NOTICE of Appearance by Chad Wayne Copeland on behalf of ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
354 MOTION for Protective Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit)(Kantor, Jayme) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
355 MOTION to Compel the Appearance of FBI Case Agent Kevin Finnerty for Deposition by NOAH FALK, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − notice of dep# 2 Exhibit 2 − email to Braswell 11.6.07# 3 Exhibit 3 − email to Braswell 11.7.07# 4 Exhibit 4 − Gardner dep)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/08/2007)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 67 of 141

11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007
11/08/2007 11/09/2007 11/09/2007
11/09/2007 11/09/2007
11/09/2007

356 ORDER denying 326 Motion for Discovery Propounded by Defendants, Newsham, Ramsey and the District of Columbia to Class Members; denying 336 Motion for Discovery, Limited, of Class Members by Gale A. Norton, United States of America, Alberto Gonzales, Richard Murphy. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 8, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
357 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 8, 2007. (lcegs2) Modified on 11/8/2007 (Obrien, Peggy). (Entered: 11/08/2007)
358 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 11/8/07. (Obrien, Peggy) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 357 Memorandum & Opinion was entered in error and has been refiled with the document attached in docket entry 358 . (lc, ) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of defendants' pending 354 Motion for a Protective Order pertaining to the 30(b)(6) deposition currently scheduled for November 9, 2007, the Court orders that the deposition shall be stayed pending resolution of the motion. It is further ordered that plaintiffs shall file their response to defendants' motion by no later than 12:00 p.m November 9, 2007. Defendants shall file their reply no later than 12:00 p.m. on November 12, 2007. Regarding plaintiffs' 355 Motion to Compel the Appearance of FBI Case Agent Finnerty, defendants are ordered to reply to plaintiffs' motion no later than November 9, 2007 at 7:00 a.m. Plaintiffs shall file their reply no later than November 9, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. So ordered. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 8, 2007. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
359 Memorandum in opposition to re 355 MOTION to Compel the Appearance of FBI Case Agent Kevin Finnerty for Deposition filed by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Johnson, Michelle) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 11/9/2007,Replies due by 11/9/07 and 11/12/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
360 REPLY to opposition to motion re 355 MOTION to Compel the Appearance of FBI Case Agent Kevin Finnerty for Deposition filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
361 NOTICE to the Court by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY re 355 MOTION to Compel the Appearance of FBI Case Agent Kevin Finnerty for Deposition (Johnson, Michelle) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
362 Memorandum in opposition to re 354 MOTION for Protective Order filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit 17# 18 Exhibit 18)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
363 Consent MOTION to Compel Production of Field Arrest Forms and Related Arrest Records from the District of Columbia by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD,

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 68 of 141

11/12/2007 11/13/2007
11/14/2007 11/14/2007
11/15/2007 11/15/2007 11/15/2007 11/16/2007
11/16/2007 11/16/2007
11/16/2007 11/16/2007

MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exchange of Emails While Conferring with Opposing Counsel to Secure Consent)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
364 REPLY to opposition to motion re 354 MOTION for Protective Order filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 11/12/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 363 Consent Motion to Compel Production of Field Arrest Forms and Related Arrest Records. It is further ordered that the District of Columbia shall produce, to the extent available, any Form 759 mass arrest field arrest forms and arrest records related to the September 27, 2002 Pershing Park arrests not heretofore produced by November 16, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 13, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Form 759 mass arrest field arrest forms and arrest records due by 11/16/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
365 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to for the Telephone Depositions of Plaintiffs Morgan Ress and Lesley Wood to Occur After the Close of Discovery and By No Later Than December 14, 2007 by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
366 MOTION to Compel Production from Plaintiffs by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. 1, DC's Req for Prduction# 2 Exhibit Exh.2. Chang Response & Log# 3 Exhibit Exh.3.Barham Priv Log# 4 Exhibit Exh.4.Abbate Offer of Judgment)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
367 MOTION to Strike Chang Opposition by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit November 8, 2007 Minute Order)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
368 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Attorney Peter S. Smith terminated. (Smith, Peter) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
MINUTE ORDER. It has come to the Court's attention that the minute order scheduling responses to 354 defendant's Motion for a Protective Order was only issued under the Barham case number and the Chang plaintiffs did not receive notice of the abbreviated briefing schedule. In the interest of fairness, the Court will accept the Chang plaintiffs' opposition because it was timely filed under the local rules. Defendant shall file any reply to the Chang plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion no later than November 20, 2007 at 12:00 p.m. It is further ordered that defendant's motion to strike the Chang plaintiffs' opposition is denied. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 16, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 12:00 p.m. on 11/20/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
369 NOTICE (Joint Submission of Consent Proposed Protective Order Regarding Production of September 27, 2002 Special Services Running Resume) by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM re 351 Order on Motion to Compel (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
370 NOTICE Of Filing Under Seal Pursuant To Court's October 30, 2007 Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 351 Order on Motion to Compel (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
371 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete the Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of the District of Columbia to Occur After the Close of Discovery and By No Later Than

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 69 of 141

11/16/2007
11/16/2007 11/19/2007
11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/20/2007 11/20/2007 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/30/2007

December 15, 2007 by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
372 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to (Consent Motion to Authorize the Depositions of Kevin Finnerty, Randolph Myers and the Final Area of Inquiries in the Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of the Federal Government) by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
373 NOTICE Of Filing Of Declaration Of Thomas L. Koger Pursuant To Court's October 30, 2007 Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 351 Order on Motion to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Thomas L. Koger pursuant to Court's October 31 2007 Order [dkt. no.351])(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 365 Consent Motion for the Telephone Depositions of Plaintiffs Morgan Ress and Lesley Wood to occur after the close of discovery and by no later than December 14, 2007; granting 371 Consent Motion to Authorize the Completion of the Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of the District of Columbia to occur after the close of discovery and by no later than December 15, 2007; granting 372 Consent Motion to Authorize the Depositions of Kevin Finnerty and Randolph Myers after the close of discovery and by no later than December 14, 2007, and to authorize the completion of Rule 30(b)6 areas of inquiry in deposition of the Federal Government to occur after the close of discovery and by no later than December 14, 2007. So ordered. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 19, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
MINUTE ORDER directing plaintiffs to respond to defendant's 366 Motion to Compel Production. Plaintiffs' response shall be filed no later than November 27, 2007. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed no later than November 30, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 19, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 11/27/2007,Replies due by 11/30/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
374 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Subpoena issued to Zachary Wolfe by PETER NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
375 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply To Pending Motions To Compel Jointly Submitted By by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 375 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiffs' response to 366 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Production from Plaintiffs shall be filed no later than November 30, 2007. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed no later than December 7, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 21, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 11/30/2007,Replies due by 12/7/2007. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
376 ORDER granting 354 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 21, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
377 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 21, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
378 STATUS REPORT of Defendants by ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only), PETER NEWSHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 70 of 141

11/30/2007
11/30/2007
12/04/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/09/2007
12/11/2007 12/11/2007 12/14/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/22/2007

OF AMERICA, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
379 STATUS REPORT by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
380 Memorandum in opposition to re 366 MOTION to Compel Production from Plaintiffs filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
381 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to file itemization of fees by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
382 REPLY to opposition to motion re 366 MOTION to Compel Production from Plaintiffs filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. A: Attorney Fee Records Previously Filed Mid−Litigation By Plaintiffs' Attorneys)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 381 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file itemization of fees. Plaintiff's itemization of fees shall be filed no later than January 18, 2008. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 7, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/09/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiffs' unopposed request to continue the status hearing set for December 12, 2007 so that outstanding discovery obligations may be completed. The court VACATES the status hearing scheduled for December 12, 2007 and schedules a new status hearing on January 9, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 7, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/09/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/9/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Itemization of fees due by 1/18/2008. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
383 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Brownlee Taylor, Leah) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 383 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery shall be completed by no later than January 8, 2008. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 17, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 1/8/2008. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
384 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Chief of Police, MPD) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 384 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 18, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
385 ORDER denying 366 Defendant's Motion to Compel Production from Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 17, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
386 MOTION for Order Providing Expungement Of Plaintiffs' Arrest Records And Precluding District Defendants Form Opposing Plaintiffs' Motions For Orders Permitting Plaintiffs To Deny Having Been Arrested And/Or For Sealing Thier D.C.

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 71 of 141

12/27/2007
12/31/2007 12/31/2007 01/08/2008
01/08/2008
01/08/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008

Superior Court Records by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 12/22/2007)
387 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 386 MOTION for Order Providing Expungement Of Plaintiffs' Arrest Records And Precluding District Defendants Form Opposing Plaintiffs' Motions For Orders Permitting Plaintiffs To Deny Having Been Arrested And/Or For Sealing Thier D.C. Superior by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 387 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 386 Defendant's Motion for Order Providing Expungement Of Plaintiffs' Arrest Records. Plaintiffs' Response shall be filed no later than January 8, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 31, 2007. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 1/8/2008 (clv, ) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
388 RESPONSE re 386 MOTION for Order Providing Expungement Of Plaintiffs' Arrest Records And Precluding District Defendants Form Opposing Plaintiffs' Motions For Orders Permitting Plaintiffs To Deny Having Been Arrested And/Or For Sealing Thier D.C. Superior filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) Modified on 1/9/2008 (nmw, ). Modified title of entry on 1/10/2008 (nmw, ). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
389 MOTION for Extension of Time to Allow Barham Plaintiffs to Provide Fee Estimate on January 18th by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
390 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete De[positions of Defendants District of Columbia and the United States Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan : Status Conference held on 1/9/2008.Motions due by 1/31/2008.,Responses due by 2/14/2008,Replies due by 2/28/2008.,Status Conference set for 1/17/2008 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter JACKIE SULLIVAN.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
391 NOTICE of Change of Address by Carl L. Messineo (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
392 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 389 Motion for Extension of Time to Provide Fee Estimate to the Court; granting 390 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Complete 30(b)(6) Depositions; granting 392 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. A status hearing shall be held on January 17, 2008 at 11:00 a.m in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 9, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered:

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 72 of 141

01/14/2008 01/14/2008 01/16/2008 01/16/2008
01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/18/2008
01/18/2008 01/18/2008
01/22/2008 01/22/2008

01/09/2008)
393 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Motion to take the Deposition of Zachry Wolfe, Esq. Out of Time and for Costs and Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Exhibit 1−10, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
394 MOTION for Costs and Fees by PETER NEWSHAM. (See Docket Entry 393 to view document). (nmw, ) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
395 NOTICE of Defendant District of Columbia's Proposed Judgment Regarding LIability on Plaintiffs' Common Law False Arrest and False Imprisonment Claims by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
396 RESPONSE re 395 Notice (Other) of Proposed Language for Entry of Judgment for Liability on Common Law False Arrest Claims filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 1/17/2008, ( Government Notice to The Court due by 1/22/2008., Non Moving Party Response due by 2/21/2008, Replies due by 3/6/2008., Motion Hearing set for 4/23/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.). (Court Reporter Jackie Sullivan.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
MINUTE ORDER, The Motion Hearing scheduled in Court today for 4/23/08 has to be continued. The Motion Hearing is now set for 4/24/08 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/17/08. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
397 Consent MOTION for Protective Order by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
398 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Itemization of Fees on Behalf of Plaintiffs Jeffrey Barham, Brian McAteer, Laury Saligman, and Miles Swanson by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
399 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Fee Estimate on January 22nd by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 398 Motion for Extension of Time to File Fee Estimate and 399 Motion for Extension of Time to file fee itemization. Plaintiffs' estimate and itemization shall be filed no later than January 22, 2008. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 22, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: plaintiff estimate and itemization due by 1/22/2008. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/22/2008)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 73 of 141

01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008
01/23/2008 01/24/2008
01/24/2008
01/29/2008 01/29/2008 01/30/2008
01/30/2008

MINUTE ORDER granting 397 Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order. The Court adopts the terms of the proposed protective order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 22, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
400 NOTICE /Praecipe Regarding Mediation Order Implications by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
401 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 ENTERED IN ERROR.....(see DE 402 )Exhibit Fee itemization, # 2 Affidavit Carl Messineo, # 3 Affidavit Mara Verheyden−Hilliard, # 4 Affidavit Zachary Wolfe, # 5 Affidavit Exhibit 4 − Decl. of Michael Kavanaugh, # 6 Exhibit 5 − Bynum fee excerpt, # 7 Exhibit 6 − Firm by Firm Sampling of Rates, # 8 Affidavit Michael Avery, # 9 Affidavit Carol Sobel)(Messineo, Carl) Modified on 1/24/2008 (lc, ). (Entered: 01/23/2008)
402 ERRATA Regarding Plaintiffs' Supplement to Motion for Attorney's Fees by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER 401 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by BRIAN MCATEER, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, LAURY SALIGMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
403 NOTICE of Filing Plaintiffs' Submission of Good Faith Estimate of Fees and Costs Under Seal by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
404 NOTICE of Proposed Order Filed Jointly by District of Columbia and Plaintiffs Regarding Expungement and Related Relief by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER re 388 Memorandum in Opposition,, 386 MOTION for Order Providing Expungement Of Plaintiffs' Arrest Records And Precluding District Defendants Form Opposing Plaintiffs' Motions For Orders Permitting Plaintiffs To Deny Having Been Arrested And/Or For Sealing Thier D.C. Superior (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order To Provide Expungement and Related Relief to Barham Plaintiffs and Class)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
405 ORDER granting 386 Motion for Order; setting forth further instruction to counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/28/08. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
406 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 393 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Motion to take the Deposition of Zachry Wolfe, Esq. Out of Time and for Costs and Fees by ZACHARY WOLFE (nmw, ) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the District of Columbia's Praecipe Regarding Mediation Order Implications filed on January 22, 2008, and there appearing to be no opposition from any party to the Court's proposal that the parties be Ordered to participate in mediation sessions before a private mediator, for a finite period of time, with the Court determining the manner in which the mediator's fees shall be paid in the event of a settlement or not, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall engage in mediation with a private mediator of the parties' choosing. The mediation period shall begin February 1, 2008 and continue through March 1, 2008. All proceedings are hereby stayed until further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 30, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines:( Mediation to conclude by 3/1/2008.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/30/2008)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 74 of 141

01/30/2008 03/25/2008 03/31/2008 04/01/2008 04/10/2008 05/22/2008 05/23/2008
05/28/2008
05/28/2008
05/28/2008 05/30/2008 06/02/2008

Case Stayed (clv, ) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
407 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Chief of Police, MPD) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
408 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 407 408 Consent Motions for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 1, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the ongoing participation of the parties in mediation, the Motions Hearing scheduled for April 24, 2008 is cancelled. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 10, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
409 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
410 SSTRICKEN FROM THE RECORD PURSUANT TO THE MINUTE ORDER FILED 5/28/08 Joint MOTION for Allocation of Mediation Fees by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Ex 1 − 1.16.08 Letter from Koger, # 2 Ex 2 − 30(b)(6) Dep. of DC, # 3 Ex 3 − Transcript of 1.17.08 Status Conference, # 4 Ex 4 − 1.11.08 9:38 am e−mail from Messineo, # 5 Ex 5 − 1.30.08 12:14 pm e−mail from Kramer, # 6 Ex 6 − 2.1.08 12:36 pm e−mail from Koger, # 7 Ex 7 − 1.1.08 12:38 pm e−mail from Koger, # 8 Ex 8 − 1.31.08 12:07 e−mail from Verheyden−Hilliard, # 9 Ex 9 − 2.1.08 10:39 am e−mail from Koger, # 10 Ex 10 − 2.1.08 12:17 pm e−mail from Kramer, # 11 Ex 11 − 2.1.08 12:30 pm e−mail from Messineo, # 12 Ex 12 − 2.1.08 12:42 pm e−mail from Koger, # 13 Ex 13 − 2.1.08 1:10 pm e−mail from Turley, # 14 Ex 14 − 2.1.08 2:10 pm e−mail from Schwartz, # 15 Ex 15 − 2.1.08 2:28 pm e−mail from Messineo, # 16 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) Modified on 5/29/2008 (clv, ). (Entered: 05/23/2008)
411 MOTION to Withdraw 410 Joint MOTION for Allocation of Mediation Fees Motion to Withdraw and Strike Joint Motion for Allocation of Mediation Fees by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
412 NOTICE of Defendant District of Columbia's Consent to Plaintiffs' Motions to Withdraw and to Strike Thier Joint Motions to Allocate Mediation Costs by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 411 MOTION to Withdraw 410 Joint MOTION for Allocation of Mediation Fees Motion to Withdraw and Strike Joint Motion for Allocation of Mediation Fees MOTION to Withdraw 410 Joint MOTION for Allocation of Mediation Fees Motion to Withdraw and Strike Joint Motion for Allocation of Mediation Fees MOTION to Withdraw 410 Joint MOTION for Allocation of Mediation Fees Motion to Withdraw and Strike Joint Motion for Allocation of Mediation Fees (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 411 Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw and Strike docket entry 410 . Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 28, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
413 MOTION Order Directing District of Columbia to Pay One−Half of Judge Levie's Mediation Services Fees Pending Further Order of the Court, MOTION for Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
414 Joint MOTION for Allocation of Medation Fees by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN,

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 75 of 141

06/05/2008 06/05/2008 06/11/2008 06/16/2008
06/16/2008 06/17/2008 06/17/2008 06/17/2008 06/26/2008

NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2, # 3 Ex. 3, # 4 Ex. 4, # 5 Ex. 5, # 6 Ex. 6, # 7 Ex. 7, # 8 Ex. 8, # 9 Ex. 9, # 10 Ex. 10, # 11 Ex. 11, # 12 Ex. 12, # 13 Ex. 13, # 14 Ex. 14, # 15 Ex. 15, # 16 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 409 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 4, 2008.(lcegs2) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
415 ORDER granting 413 the District of Columbia's Motion to Pay One−Half of Mediation Services Fees Pending Further Order of the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 5, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
416 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). Attorney Justin M. Shellaway terminated. (Faust, John) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
417 Memorandum in opposition to re 414 Joint MOTION for Allocation of Medation Fees and Cross−Motion for Assessment of Fees Against Chang and Barham Plaintiffs filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Exh. 1 Oct 5 2006 Order, # 3 Exhibit Exh. 2 DC Circuit Mediation Program Order, # 4 Exhibit Exh. 3 JAMS Mediation Agreement, # 5 Exhibit Exh. 4 Koger 5.27.08 letter Plaintiffs, # 6 Exhibit Exh. 5 Koger 5.28.08 1009 am email, # 7 Exhibit Exh. 6 5.28.08 Kramer 1242 email to Koger, # 8 Exhibit Exh. 7. 5.28.08 Koger 125 email to Kramer, # 9 Errata Exh. 8. 5.28.08 MVH 3:43 email to Koger, # 10 Exhibit Exh. 9 USDC Withdrawal Notification, # 11 Exhibit Exh. 10 5.29.08 MVH 1139 email to Koger, # 12 Exhibit Exh. 11 5.29.08 Koger 3:44 email to MVH, # 13 Exhibit Exh.12 5.29.08 Kramer 519 email to Koger, # 14 Exhibit Exh. 13 5.29 Koger 548 email to Kramer, # 15 Exhibit Exh. 14 Excerpt of 12.13.07 Herold dep, # 16 Exhibit Exh. 15 12.27.08 Messineo email to Koger, # 17 Exhibit Exh. 16 1.2.08 Koger email to Schwartz, # 18 Exhibit Exh. 17 1.7.08 Schwartz email to Koger, # 19 Exhibit Exh. 18 1.28.08 Herold Deposition Tr, # 20 Exhibit Exh. 19 Jan. 9 2008 hearing tr excerpt, # 21 Exhibit Exh. 20 Excerpt of Settlement Proposal)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
418 CROSS MOTION for assessment of fees against Chang and Barham Plaintiffs by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (See Docket Entry 417 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
419 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
420 Consent MOTION for Order Holding In Abeyance Action On Charles H. Ramsey's Pending Motions For An Award Of Attorneys Fees by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 420 Consent Motion to Hold In Abeyance Action on Charles H. Ramsey's Pending Motions for an Award of Attorneys Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 17, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
421 REPLY to opposition to motion re 418 MOTION, 414 Joint MOTION for Allocation of Medation Fees Joint Reply in Support of Motion for Allocation of Mediation Fees 414 and Opposition to the District's Cross Motion for Assessment of Fees Against Chang and Barham Plaintiffs 418 filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Ex 1 − Transcript of 1.17.08 Status Conference, # 2 Ex 2 − 1.11.08 Messineo Email to Koger, # 3 Ex 3 − 1.30.08 Kramer to Counsel Email, # 4 Ex 4 − 2.1.08 Kramer to Counsel Email, # 5 Ex 5 − 2.1.08 Messineo to Counsel Email, # 6 Ex 6 − 2.1.08 Koger 12.36 pm Email, # 7 Ex 7 − 1.16.08 Koger Letter to Counsel, # 8 Ex 8 − MVH 1.31.08 Email, # 9 Ex 9 − 2.1.08

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 76 of 141

06/26/2008
07/01/2008 07/14/2008 07/16/2008
07/16/2008 07/16/2008
07/24/2008
08/06/2008 08/06/2008 08/07/2008 08/12/2008

Koger 12.32 pm Email, # 10 Ex 10 − 2.1.08 Turley Email, # 11 Ex 11 − Carr Opinion)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
422 Memorandum in opposition to re 418 CROSS MOTION for assessment of fees against Chang and Barham Plaintiffs filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (See Docket Entry 421 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
423 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply In Further SuportOf Defendatn's Cross−Motion For Allocation Of Meiation Costs by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
424 REPLY to opposition to motion re 418 MOTION filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
425 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply Addressing Issues Raised in the District's Reply in Further Support of Its Cross−Motion for Assessment of Fees (docket no. 424) by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A − Plaintiffs' Joint Sur−Reply)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting (407) Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply in case 1:02−cv−02010−EGS; granting (425) Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply in case 1:02−cv−02283−EGS. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 16, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
426 SURREPLY to re 418 MOTION Plaintiffs' Joint Sur−Reply in Further Support of Their Opposition to the District's Cross−Motion for Assessment of Fees Against Chang and Barham Plaintiffs filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
427 MOTION to Lift Stay re Order,,, Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
428 Memorandum in opposition to re 427 MOTION to Lift Stay re Order,,, Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings filed by PETER NEWSHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
429 Cross MOTION to Lift Stay by PETER NEWSHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
430 Interim MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
431 REPLY to opposition to motion re 429 Cross MOTION to Lift Stay, 427 MOTION to Lift Stay re Order,,, Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings Plaintiffs' Reply in

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 77 of 141

08/13/2008
08/14/2008 08/14/2008
08/14/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008 10/21/2008 11/26/2008
12/29/2008 01/07/2009

Support of Motion to Lift Stay 427 and Response to the District's Cross−Motion to Lift Stay 429 filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
432 Memorandum in opposition to re 429 Cross MOTION to Lift Stay Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Lift Stay 427 and Response to the District's Cross−Motion to Lift Stay 429 filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting (402) Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:02−cv−02010−EGS; granting (419) Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:02−cv−02283−EGS. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 14, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
433 Consent MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Radhika Miller, :Firm− Partnership for Civil Justice, :Address− 617 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001. Phone No. − (202) 232−1180. Fax No. − (202) 350−9557 by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Radhika Miller, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
434 REPLY to opposition to motion re 429 Cross MOTION to Lift Stay filed by PETER NEWSHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 430 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 29, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 433 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 29, 2008. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
435 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Allocation of Mediation Fees, defendant District of Columbia's Opposition and Cross−Motion for Assessment of Fees against Chang and Barham Plaintiffs, plaintiffs' Joint Reply and Opposition, defendant's Reply, and plaintiffs' Joint Surreply, and substantially for the reasons advanced by the defendant District of Columbia, plaintiffs' Joint Motion is DENIED and defendant District of Columbia's Cross−Motion is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that the Chang Plaintiffs shall promptly issue payment to JAMS in the amount of $3,807.50 in mediation costs; and it is further ORDERED that the Barham Plaintiffs shall promptly issue payment to JAMS in the amount of $3,807.50 in mediation costs. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 26, 2008. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
ORDER granting 435 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 12, 2008. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' cross−motions to lift the stay [427, 429 in 02−2283; 409, 410 in 02−2010] and the oppositions and replies thereto, it

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 78 of 141

01/07/2009 01/15/2009 01/15/2009 01/16/2009 01/16/2009
01/17/2009

is hereby ORDERED that the stay in this case is lifted. The parties are directed to proceed as follows: plaintiffs' motions for sanctions shall be filed by no later than January 16, 2009; defendants shall file a response to said motions, if any, by no later than February 6, 2009; and plaintiffs shall file a reply, if any, by no later than February 20, 2009. The Barham defendants are further directed to file an opposition, if any, to the supplemental motion for attorney fees filed by the Rule 68 plaintiffs [401 in 02−2283] by no later than January 30, 2009. The Rule 68 plaintiffs shall file a reply, if any, by no later than February 13, 2009. The Court further directs nonparty Zachary Wolfe to file a response to the Barham defendants' motion to take Mr. Wolfe's deposition out of time and for costs and fees [393 in 02−2283] by no later than January 16, 2009. The Barham defendants shall file a reply to Mr. Wolfe's response by no later than January 23, 2009. Notwithstanding resolution of the issues arising out of the taking of Mr. Wolfe's deposition, all other discovery in this case shall be completed by no later than March 16, 2009. The parties are directed to file a joint proposal for further proceedings by no later than March 30, 2009. The Court will hold a status hearing on April 9, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 7, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 3/16/2009. Motions for sanctions due by 1/16/2009; Responses due by 2/6/2009; Replies due by 2/20/2009; Opposition to supplemental motion for attorney fees due by 1/30/09; reply due by 2/13/09; Response to motion to take Mr. Wolfe's deposition out of time due by 1/16/09; reply due by 1/23/09; Status Report due by 3/30/2009; Status Conference set for 4/9/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
436 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Carol Sobel, :Firm− Law Offices of Carol Sobel, :Address− 429 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste. 550; Santa Monica, California 90401. Phone No. − (310) 393−3055. Fax No. − (310) 393−3605 by ZACHARY WOLFE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Carol Sobel's Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 436 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Carol Sobel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 15, 2009. (AS, ) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
437 Memorandum in opposition to re 393 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Motion to take the Deposition of Zachry Wolfe, Esq. Out of Time and for Costs and Fees filed by ZACHARY WOLFE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Wolfe, # 2 Exhibit email correspondence)(Wolfe, Zachary) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
438 ENTERED IN ERROR..... MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by the District of Columbia (w/o exhibits, which will not upload via ECF) by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit List)(Messineo, Carl) Modified on 1/21/2009 (nmw, ). (Entered: 01/16/2009)
439 MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by District of Columbia by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit list, # 3 Exhibit Ex 1 − Jones Dep, # 4 Exhibit Ex 2 − DC 30(b)(6) Dep (Herold 11.16.07), # 5 Exhibit 30(b)(6) (Herold 9.12.07), # 6 Exhibit Eritten depox 4 − Ramsey written depo, # 7 Exhibit Ex 5 − Mass Demo Handbook, # 8 Exhibit Ex 6 − Broadbent Dep, # 9 Exhibit Ex 7 − JOCC Activation Procedures Manual, # 10 Exhibit Ex 8 − Haudenschild Dep, # 11 Exhibit Ex 9 − Koger Decl, # 12 Exhibit Ex 10 − Ponton Dep, # 13 Exhibit Ex 11 − Ramsey Dep, # 14 Exhibit Ex 12 − DC 30(b)(6) (Hunter 11.9.07), # 15 Exhibit Ex 13 − DC 30(b)(6) (Crane 9.12.07), # 16 Exhibit Ex

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 79 of 141

01/21/2009 01/21/2009
01/23/2009 01/23/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009
01/28/2009 01/29/2009

14 − 7.31.06 Letter frin Schifferle, # 17 Exhibit Ex 15 − 6.1.06 letter from Lee, # 18 Exhibit ex 16 − 2.15.06 Transcript in Bolger, # 19 Exhibit Ex 17 − 7.18.07 Email from Koger, # 20 Exhibit Ex 18 − DC 30(b)(6) in Bolger (Jones), # 21 Exhibit Ex 19 − Council Report, # 22 Exhibit Ex 20 − 7.15.03 Subpoena Duces Tecum, # 23 Exhibit Ex 21 − 9.29.03 Subpoena Dcuces Tecum, # 24 Exhibit Ex 22 − 10.6.03 OGC letter to Council, # 25 Exhibit Ex 23 − Harris Decl, # 26 Exhibit Ex 24 − 7.28.03 OGC Collection Letter, # 27 Exhibit Ex 25 − Ramsey Decl, # 28 Exhibit Ex 26 − After Action Report, # 29 Exhibit Ex 27 − DC 30(b)(6) (Klein 8.30.05 and 9.9.05), # 30 Exhibit Ex 28 − Griffith Dep, # 31 Exhibit Ex 29 − 2001 Inauguration JOCC Running Resume, # 32 Exhibit Ex 30 − Newsham Dep, # 33 Exhibit Ex 31 − Pls' 1st RFP to DC, # 34 Exhibit Ex 32 − 10.28.04 Koger Letter, # 35 Exhibit Ex 33 − 9.28.07 Messineo email, # 36 Exhibit Ex 34 − 9.28.07 Koger email, # 37 Exhibit Ex 35 − Denise Alexander Decl., # 38 Exhibit Ex 36 − DC Responses to Pls 1st RFP, # 39 Exhibit Ex 37 − Hansohn Dep)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/17/2009)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 438 MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by the District of Columbia (w/o exhibits, which will not upload via ECF) was entered in error and and was refiled by counsel as Docket Entry 439 .(nmw, ) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
440 NOTICE of Filing of Bulky Exhibit by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER re 439 MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by District of Columbia (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
441 REPLY to opposition to motion re 393 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Motion to take the Deposition of Zachry Wolfe, Esq. Out of Time and for Costs and Fees filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
442 ERRATA Corrected Certificate of Service by PETER NEWSHAM 441 Reply to opposition to Motion filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 355 plaintiffs' motion to compel in light of 361 defendants' representation that Agent Finnerty's deposition had been scheduled to take place on December 13, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 28, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 393 defendants' motion to take Zachary Wolfe's deposition over Mr. Wolfe's objection. Mr. Wolfe is directed to appear for a deposition at a mutually agreed upon date and time but in any event by no later than February 27, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 28, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 394 defendants' motion for costs and fees. Upon consideration of the defendants' motion, Mr. Wolfe's opposition, and defendants' reply, Mr. Wolfe is directed to forthwith reimburse defendants for the court reporter costs incurred by defendants as a result of the deposition scheduled for November 16, 2007. The Court denies defendants' motion to the extent that it seeks reimbursement for attorney fees for the federal defendants' counsel and counsel for Fairfax County Sheriff's Department. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 28, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
443 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Briefing of Sanctions Motion by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 443 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant District of Columbia shall respond to 439 plaintiffs' motion for sanctions by no later than February 13, 2009. Plaintiffs shall file a reply by no later than March 6, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 29, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/29/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 80 of 141

01/29/2009 01/30/2009 01/30/2009
02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/12/2009 02/12/2009 02/13/2009 02/13/2009 02/13/2009 02/13/2009 02/14/2009
02/20/2009

Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 2/13/2009 Replies due by 3/6/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
444 NOTICE of Change of Address by Thomas Louis Koger (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
445 Memorandum in opposition to re 309 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Enlargement of Time Within Which to Provide Itemization and Plaintiffs Supplemental Motion For Attorneys Fees filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. 1 OUSA Laffey Matrix, # 2 Exhibit Exh. 2 DC's 1st Req for Prodn to Pls, # 3 Exhibit Exh. 3 Washington Post article re: Abbate Settlement, # 4 Exhibit Exh. 4 Pls Upwardly Adjusted Laffey Matrix, # 5 Exhibit Exh. 5 Pls Billing Entries (numbered), # 6 Exhibit Exh. 6 Pls Itemized Non−conferencing Duplicative Efforts, # 7 Exhibit Exh. 7 Pls Duplicative Conferencing Entries, # 8 Exhibit Att. A. Nov. 30 2006 Bolger Fee Memorandum Decision and Order, # 9 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying In Part Pls Fee Petn)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
446 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 401 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
ORDER granting 446 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiffs Jeffrey Barham, Brian McAteer, Laury Saligman and Miles Swanson shall file a Reply by no later than February 20, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 11, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 2/20/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
447 Memorandum in opposition to re 439 MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by District of Columbia filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
448 Memorandum in opposition to re 439 MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by District of Columbia filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Faust, John) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
449 Memorandum in opposition to re 439 MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by District of Columbia on Behalf of MichaelFitzgerald, Brian Jordan, Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre Harrison, and Michael Smith filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
450 Memorandum in opposition to re 439 MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by District of Columbia filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
451 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
452 Memorandum in opposition to re 439 MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by District of Columbia Amended Opposition filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh A Chastain Tr, # 2 Exhibit Exh. B Wolfe Decl, # 3 Exhibit Exh C Committee Resolution, # 4 Exhibit Exh D Koger Decl, # 5 Exhibit Exh E Committee Report, # 6 Exhibit Exh G MPD 9.27.20 Arrestee List, # 7 Exhibit Exh H David Jackson Decl, # 8 Exhibit Exh I 4.15.2000 MPD SSC SID Running Resume, # 9 Exhibit Exh J 4.15.00 Running Resume, # 10 Exhibit Exh K Bolger Case Running Resume Excerpt, # 11 Exhibit Exh L Newsham Dep I, # 12 Exhibit Newsham Dep II, # 13 Exhibit Exh N Jordan Dep Exh After Action Report, # 14 Exhibit Exh N.! Jordan Dep Exh Statement, # 15 Exhibit Exh O Hamelin Dep Exh, # 16 Exhibit Exh P Hamelin Dep Tr Excerpt, # 17 Exhibit Exh Q Jordan Dep Tr Excerpt, # 18 Exhibit Exh R Pls Redaction Table)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 02/14/2009)
453 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 81 of 141

02/20/2009
02/20/2009 02/20/2009 02/20/2009 02/23/2009 02/23/2009
02/25/2009 03/03/2009 03/05/2009
03/06/2009

454 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 401 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees Consent Motion for Brief Enlargement of One Day to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplement to Motion for Attorney's Fees by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miller, Radhika) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 451 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 20, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 454 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of 401 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees. Plaintiffs Jeffrey Barham, Brian McAteer, Laury Saligman and Miles Swanson shall file their Reply by no later than February 23, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 20, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 453 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 20, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 2/23/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
455 REPLY to opposition to motion re 401 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees filed by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 Second Aff. of Kavanaugh in Bolger, # 2 Ex. 2 Transcript of 10.7.04 Council Hearing, # 3 Ex. 3 2.18.05 Offer of Judgment redacted, # 4 Ex. 4 6.12.06 VE Invoice, # 5 Ex. 5 Appearances at 9.2.04 Solberg Dep., # 6 Ex. 6 3.17.06 VE Invoice, # 7 Ex. 7 Appearances at Barham, McAteer and Swanson Deps., # 8 Ex. 8 Second Aff. of Mara Verheyden−Hilliard)(Miller, Radhika) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
456 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian P. Hudak on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
457 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. Attorney Michelle Nicole Johnson terminated. (Johnson, Michelle) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
458 NOTICE of Supplemental Filing by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 450 Memorandum in Opposition, 452 Memorandum in Opposition,,, 449 Memorandum in Opposition, (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Commander Crane, # 2 Exhibit A− Photocopies of tapes (front and back), # 3 Exhibit 3/05 Notice of Deposition, # 4 Exhibit 12/07 Deposition transcript, # 5 Exhibit Emails)(Brownlee Taylor, Leah) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
459 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Plaintiffs Motion to Exceed Page Limitation for Plaintiffs Consolidated Reply to Defendant District of Columbias Amended Partial Opposition to Chang and Barham Plaintiffs Motions for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 452), Memorandum of Defendants Michael Fitzgerald, Brian Jordan, Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre Harrison, and Michael Smith in Opposition to Chang and Barham Motions for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 449), Opposition of Defendant Newsham to Plaintiffs Motions for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 447), and Memorandum of Individual Capacity Defendant Charles H. Ramsey in Opposition to Barham and Chang Motions for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 488) by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/06/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 82 of 141

03/06/2009
03/09/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009
03/16/2009 03/16/2009 03/17/2009 03/18/2009

460 REPLY to opposition to motion re 439 MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by District of Columbia Plaintiffs Consolidated Reply to Defendant District of Columbias Amended Partial Opposition to Chang and Barham Plaintiffs Motions for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 452), Memorandum of Defendants Michael Fitzgerald, Brian Jordan, Bryan DiGirolamo, Andre Harrison, and Michael Smith in Opposition to Chang and Barham Motions for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 449), Opposition of Defendant Newsham to Plaintiffs Motions for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 447), and Memorandum of Individual Capacity Defendant Charles H. Ramsey in Opposition to Barham and Chang Motions for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 488) filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Ex. 1a, # 3 Ex. 1b, # 4 Ex. 1c, # 5 Ex. 2, # 6 Ex. 3a, # 7 Ex. 3b, # 8 Ex. 4a, # 9 Ex. 4b, # 10 Ex. 5a, # 11 Ex. 5b, # 12 Ex. 6, # 13 Ex. 7, # 14 Ex. 8, # 15 Ex. 9, # 16 Ex. 10, # 17 Ex. 11, # 18 Ex. 12, # 19 Ex. 13, # 20 Ex. 14, # 21 Ex. 15, # 22 Ex. 16, # 23 Ex. 17, # 24 Ex. 18, # 25 Ex. 19, # 26 Ex. 20, # 27 Ex. 21, # 28 Ex. 22)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting over objection 459 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs may file one consolidated reply not to exceed 45 pages. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 9, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
461 MOTION for Leave to File Surrpley To Motion For Award OfFees To Non−Class Member Barham Plaintiffs Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Surreply for Filing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Surreply)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
462 Memorandum in opposition to re 461 MOTION for Leave to File Surrpley To Motion For Award OfFees To Non−Class Member Barham Plaintiffs Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, BRIAN MCATEER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Ex. 1 − March 6, 2009 Email from Koger to Verheyden−Hilliard)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
463 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' February 25, 2009 Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of the FBI by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
464 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Specific Discovery by NOAH FALK, DEVON YATES, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SEAN MCATEER, LORETTA MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARY CANALES, BRIAN MCATEER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
465 REPLY to opposition to motion re 461 MOTION for Leave to File Surrpley To Motion For Award OfFees To Non−Class Member Barham Plaintiffs Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 463 FBI's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition and 464 Joint Motion of Barham Plaintiffs and District of Columbia for Extension of Time to Complete Specific Discovery. Plaintiffs and the District of Columbia shall have until April 3, 2009 to resolve specific issues regarding and arising from Barham plaintiffs 30(b)(6) deposition of the District as to the area of inquiry identified as Topic 8 in Barham

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 83 of 141

03/23/2009 03/23/2009
03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009
03/30/2009
03/30/2009

Plaintiffs Second Amended Notice of Deposition of Defendant District of Columbia. Likewise, federal defendant FBI shall produce witnesses to testify in response to plaintiffs Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition by no later than April 3, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 18, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
466 MOTION for Leave to File SURREPLY in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions 439 by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Surreply)(Faust, John) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
467 Memorandum in opposition to re 466 MOTION for Leave to File SURREPLY in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions 439 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Individual Capacity Defendant Charles H. Ramsey's Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Barham and Chang Motions for Sanctions filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
468 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to re 460 Reply to opposition to Motion,,,,, filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Surreply, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) Modified on 3/23/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 03/23/2009)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 468 Surreply has been modified as a Motion for Leave to File Surreply. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
469 Memorandum in opposition to re 468 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Newsham's Motion to File Surreply to Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant Newsham's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Against the District of Columbia filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 401 the motion for attorney fees filed by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER, 445 defendant District of Columbia's partial opposition, and 455 plaintiffs' reply, and in view of the fact that there is no dispute that plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable fees and costs, the motion is GRANTED. In view of the Court's current and anticipated future participation in protracted litigation, the reasonable amount of attorney fees will be determined by a supplemental Order of this Court. The Court DENIES 461 Defendant District of Columbia's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply, on the basis that no new issues have been raised in 455 plaintiffs' reply. See Lewis v. Rumsfeld, 154 F. Supp. 2d 56, 60 (D.D.C. 2001) ("The standard for granting a leave to file a surreply is whether the party making the motion would be unable to contest matters presented to the court for the first time in the opposing party's reply."). Plaintiffs are admonished, however, that any future filings exceeding the page limits provided by the Local Rules will be stricken. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 30, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
470 ERRATA Regarding Plaintiffs' Consolidated Reply in Support of Their Motion for Sanctions and Related Relief for Discovery Abuses Perpetrated by the District of Columbia by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM 460 Reply to opposition to Motion,,,,, filed by JOHN PASSACANTANDO, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MORGAN RESS, MARY CANALES, MACDONALD SCOTT, SALLY A. NORTON, JEFFREY BARHAM, LAURY SALIGMAN, SAMANTHA YOUNG, NICOLE PRICHARD, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAM DURHAM, CASEY LEGLER, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, JERI

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 84 of 141

03/30/2009
04/01/2009 04/02/2009 04/17/2009
04/17/2009
04/20/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/22/2009 04/29/2009

WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, NOAH FALK, JOSEPH PHELAN, BRIAN MCATEER, MILES SWANSON. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
471 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only), MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, PETER NEWSHAM, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the status hearing previously scheduled for April 9, 2009 will now take place on May 13, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 1, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/13/2009 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
472 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to for Barham Plaintiffs and the District of Columbia to Continue Efforts to Resolve Specific Discovery Concerns by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
473 MOTION for Extension of Time to for Barham Plaintiffs to Seek to Resolve Specific Discovery Concerns Regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/17/2009)
474 NOTICE by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD MURPHY re 473 MOTION for Extension of Time to for Barham Plaintiffs to Seek to Resolve Specific Discovery Concerns Regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 472 and 473 plaintiffs' motions for extensions of time. In the event that the parties are not able to resolve the outstanding discovery disputes, plaintiffs shall file any and all motions to compel by no later than May 1, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 21, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 5/1/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
475 MANDATE of USCA (certified copy) as to 331 Notice of Appeal filed by ALBERTO GONZALES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD MURPHY, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, GALE A. NORTON; that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. USCA Case Number 07−5305. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Opinion)(hsj, ) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
476 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Attorney Jayme Kantor terminated. (Kantor, Jayme) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
477 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to for Barham Plaintiffs and the District of Columbia to Continue Efforts to Resolve Specific Discovery Concerns by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER,

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 85 of 141

04/29/2009 04/30/2009 05/01/2009 05/07/2009 05/07/2009
05/08/2009 05/15/2009
05/22/2009

CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/29/2009)
478 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to for Barham Plaintiffs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to Continue Efforts to Resolve Specific Discovery Concerns by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/29/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 477 and 478 Consent Motions for Extension of Time Continue Efforts to Resolve Specific Discovery Concerns. Any motions to compel arising out of continued discovery disputes between plaintiffs and District of Columbia and/or the FBI shall be filed by no later than May 15, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 30, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 5/15/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
MINUTE ORDER : Due to the Court's calendar it is necessary to vace the Status Hearing date of 5/13/09. Status Conference is now set for 6/23/2009 12:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/7/09. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the Court's calendar and the number of motions currently pending and in the process of being briefed, the hearing previously scheduled for May 13, 2009 has been continued to June 25, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. (PLEASE NOTE THE DATE AND TIME CHANGE. The previously noted date of June 23, 2009 was entered in error.) The Court recognizes that all parties, including the Court, have a compelling interest in resolving the pending motions, and is of the opinion that this continuance will give the parties an opportunity to focus on resolving any outstanding issues and completing any necessary briefing and will permit the Court to give proper attention to the pending motions. In order to facilitate efficient resolution of the outstanding issues and to ensure that no further delay results, the Court hereby imposes the following briefing schedule: any and all motions relating to discovery shall be filed by no later than May 15, 2009; responses shall be filed by no later than May 22, 2009; replies shall be filed by no later than May 29, 2009. The Court will not extend these deadlines. At the hearing on June 25, 2009, the Court will address any matters that have not been resolved by the Court or the parties by that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 7, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Motions due by 5/15/2009. Responses due by 5/29/2009 Replies due by 6/25/2009. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2009 01:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
479 MOTION to Compel , Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 30(b)(6), the FBI Conduct a Name Search Through Records Collections in Order to Determine the Existence or Absence of Intelligence Related Records Pertaining to or Derived From the Demonstration and Mass Arrest by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Ex. 1 − Gardner Dep., # 3 Ex. 2 − Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Dep of FBI, # 4 Ex. 3 − March 10, 2009 Braswell Email, # 5 Ex. 4 − March 11, 2009 Messineo Email, # 6 Ex. 5 − Chapman Dep., # 7 Ex. 6 − Boetig Dep.)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
480 Memorandum in opposition to re 479 MOTION to Compel , Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 30(b)(6), the FBI Conduct a Name Search Through Records Collections in Order to Determine the Existence or Absence of Intelligence Related Records

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 86 of 141

05/27/2009
05/27/2009 05/27/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009

Pertaining to or Derived From the Demonstration MOTION to Compel , Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 30(b)(6), the FBI Conduct a Name Search Through Records Collections in Order to Determine the Existence or Absence of Intelligence Related Records Pertaining to or Derived From the Demonstration MOTION to Compel , Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 30(b)(6), the FBI Conduct a Name Search Through Records Collections in Order to Determine the Existence or Absence of Intelligence Related Records Pertaining to or Derived From the Demonstration MOTION to Compel , Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 30(b)(6), the FBI Conduct a Name Search Through Records Collections in Order to Determine the Existence or Absence of Intelligence Related Records Pertaining to or Derived From the Demonstration filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Rule 30(b)(6) Notice), # 2 Exhibit B (Boetig Dep. Tr.), # 3 Exhibit C (Boetig Decl.), # 4 Exhibit D (VGTOF Bulletin), # 5 Exhibit E (Chapman Dep. Tr.), # 6 Exhibit F (IDW Info.), # 7 Exhibit G (Messineo Letter of 04/15/2009), # 8 Exhibit H (Hudak Letter of 05/04/2009), # 9 Exhibit I (Miller Email of 05/15/2009), # 10 Exhibit J (Powell Decl.), # 11 Exhibit K (N−Dex Sys. Notice), # 12 Exhibit L (Del Greco Decl.), # 13 Exhibit M (N−Dex List), # 14 Text of Proposed Order)(Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting over plaintiffs' objections the individual defendants' motions for leave to file surreplies in opposition to plaintiffs' motions for sanctions. The surreplies are deemed filed as of this date. The Court also instructs the parties that they should be prepared to answer questions regarding plaintiffs' motions for sanctions at the status hearing to be held on June 25, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 27, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/27/2009)
481 SURREPLY to re 439 MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by District of Columbia filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (nmw, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
482 SURREPLY to re 439 MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Perpetrated by District of Columbia filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (nmw, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
483 NOTICE Regarding Motions Deadlines by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Faust, John) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES. At the status hearing on June 25, 2009, the Court will issue a scheduling order governing further proceedings in this case. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 25, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
484 REPLY to opposition to motion re 479 MOTION to Compel , Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 30(b)(6), the FBI Conduct a Name Search Through Records Collections in Order to Determine the Existence or Absence of Intelligence Related Records Pertaining to or Derived From the Demonstration MOTION to Compel , Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 30(b)(6), the FBI Conduct a Name Search Through Records Collections in Order to Determine the Existence or Absence of Intelligence Related Records Pertaining to or Derived From the Demonstration MOTION to Compel , Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 30(b)(6), the FBI Conduct a Name Search Through Records Collections in Order to Determine the Existence or Absence of Intelligence Related Records Pertaining to or Derived From the Demonstration MOTION to Compel , Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 30(b)(6), the FBI Conduct a Name Search Through Records Collections in Order to Determine the Existence or Absence of Intelligence Related Records Pertaining to or Derived From the Demonstration filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Ex. 1 − Affidavit of Morgan Ress, # 3 Ex. 2 − 2.National Dragnet is a Click Away, # 4 Ex. 3 − 3.Use of Data Collections Systems is Up Sharply Following 9/11, # 5 Ex. 4 − 4.Computerworld Honors Program N−DEx Case Study, # 6 Ex. 5 − 5.Chapman Dep., # 7 Ex. 6 − 6.April 17, 2009 Miller Email to counsel, # 8 Ex. 7 − 7.April 17, 2009 Braswell Email to Miller, # 9 Ex. 8 − 8.April 23, 2009 Miller Email to Braswell, # 10 Ex. 9 − 9.April 23, 2009 Hudak Email to Miller, # 11 Ex. 10 − 10.April 29, 2009 Miller Email to Hudak, # 12 Ex. 11 − 11.April 29, 2009 Hudak Email to Miller, # 13 Ex. 12 − 12.May 1, 2009 Hudak Email to Miller, # 14 Ex. 13 − May 4, 2009 Hudak Transmittal Email to counsel, # 15 Ex. 14 − May 14, 2009 Hudak Letter to Messineo, # 16 Ex. 14a −

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 87 of 141

06/01/2009 06/09/2009
06/12/2009 06/15/2009
06/17/2009 06/23/2009 07/13/2009 07/14/2009
07/15/2009

May 14, 2009 Hudak Transmittal Email, # 17 Ex. 15 − Boetig Dep., # 18 Ex. 16 −March 25, 2009 Rule 30(b)(6) Notice, # 19 Ex.. 17 − Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File document, # 20 Ex. 18 − September 11, 2002 FBI communication, # 21 Ex. 19 − August 7, 2002 Newman Email, # 22 Ex. 20 − September 20, 2002 FBI communication, # 23 Ex. 21 Large Volume of FBI Files Alarms U.S. Activist Groups, # 24 Ex.22 − FBI Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show, # 25 Ex. 23 −Protecting America National Task Force Wages War on Terror, # 26 Ex. 24 − FBI N−DEx Chart, # 27 Ex. 25 −Raytheon N−DEx Brochure, # 28 Ex. 26 −FBI N−DEx Overview, # 29 Ex. 27 − FBI Shows Off Counterrorism Database)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 05/30/2009)
485 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 475 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:02−cv−02010−EGS, and 485 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:02−cv−02283−EGS. Defendant District of Columbia shall pay the sum of $47,059.51 to Robert E. Deso, counsel for defendant Newsham, for legal fees and costs, pursuant to D.C. Code § 5−115.04, for legal representation from February 1, 2009 through April 30, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 9, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
486 MOTION for Leave to File to File a Sur−reply by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Sur−reply, # 2 Sur−reply Declaration)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
487 Memorandum in opposition to re 486 MOTION for Leave to File to File a Sur−reply Plaintiffs' Partial Opposition to Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation's Motion for Leave to File a Sur−reply filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Ex. 1 − June 11, 2009 3:40 pm Verheyden−Hilliard Email, # 3 Ex. 2 − June 11, 2009 4:19 pm Verheyden−Hilliard Email)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
488 REPLY to opposition to motion re 486 MOTION for Leave to File to File a Sur−reply filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
MINUTE ORDER: Due to the Court's calendar it is necessary to vacate the Motion Hearing date of June 25, 2009. Motion Hearing is now set for 7/29/2009 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 6/23/09. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
489 MOTION to Continue July 29, 2009 Hearing Date by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD MURPHY (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
490 RESPONSE re 489 MOTION to Continue July 29, 2009 Hearing Date filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Verheyden−Hilliard, Mara) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
MINUTE ORDER denying [(479) in Civ. No. 02−2010; (489) in Civ. No. 02−2283] Federal Defendants' and Fairfax County Sheriff's Office's Motion to Continue. In view of the difficulty of finding a mutually convenient time for all counsel and the Court, the hearing will take place as scheduled on July 29, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Counsel for the federal defendants and Fairfax County sheriff's office are directed to make appropriate arrangements for substitute counsel to attend the hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 15, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 88 of 141

07/21/2009 07/22/2009 07/24/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009
07/27/2009
07/28/2009
07/29/2009 07/29/2009 07/30/2009

491 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting (481) Consent Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:02−cv−02010−EGS; granting (491) Consent Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:02−cv−02283−EGS. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 22, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
492 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by GALE A. NORTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBERTO GONZALES, RICHARD MURPHY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Answer)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 492 the federal defendants' unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file answer. The answer attached as Exhibit A to the motion is deemed timely filed as of this date. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 27, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
493 NOTICE By Plaintiffs Pertaining to Late Disclosed Documents from Defendant District of Columbia by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, NICOLE PRICHARD, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
494 ANSWER to 216 Third Amended Complaint,, by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, KENNETH SALAZAR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD MURPHY. Related document: 216 Third Amended Complaint,, filed by JOHN PASSACANTANDO, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MORGAN RESS, MARY CANALES, MACDONALD SCOTT, SALLY A. NORTON, JEFFREY BARHAM, LAURY SALIGMAN, SAMANTHA YOUNG, NICOLE PRICHARD, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAM DURHAM, CASEY LEGLER, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, NOAH FALK, JOSEPH PHELAN, BRIAN MCATEER, MILES SWANSON.(jf, ) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
495 NOTICE BY PLAINTIFFS OF MORE LATE DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Verheyden−Hilliard, Mara) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Motion Hearing held on 7/29/2009. Status Conference set for 9/29/2009 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Order to be presented. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
496 ORDER directing the District of Columbia to issue a check in the amount of $97,203.71 to the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund within ten (10) days. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 29, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
497 ORDER. In view of the hearing held on July 29, 2009, and upon consideration of all the matters discussed therein, the Court denies without prejudice the motions for sanctions, grants the Barham plaintiffs' motion to compel the FBI to conduct a name search, and grants the motion for leave to file a surreply in connection with that motion. Moreover, upon further reflection, the Court also denies without prejudice the individual officers' motions for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed in the Chang action and denies as moot the motion for leave to file a surreply in connection with those motions. This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for resolution of what, if any, documents produced in camera in connection with the Chang plaintiffs' motions to compel should be produced to Chang plaintiffs; and for a report and recommendation on the amount of additional attorney fees and costs, if any, to which the Rule 68 plaintiffs in the Barham action are entitled.

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 89 of 141

07/30/2009 08/03/2009 08/07/2009 08/12/2009 08/12/2009
08/14/2009
08/20/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009 08/24/2009 08/25/2009

The parties are directed to read this Order in its entirety for further instructions. The Court will hold a status hearing on September 29, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 30, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
498 SURREPLY to re 479 MOTION to Compel, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 30(b)(6), the FBI Conduct a Name Search Through Records Collections in Order to Determine the Existence or Absence of Intelligence Related Records Pertaining to or Derived From the Demonstrat ion and Mass Arrest filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (jf) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
499 NOTICE of Appearance by Ellen A. Efros on behalf of CATHY L. LANIER, PETER NEWSHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Efros, Ellen) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
500 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for resolution of what, if any, documents produced in camera should be produced to the Chang plaintiffs; and the report and recommendation on the amount of attorney fees and costs. (kb) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
501 NOTICE of Filing of Declaration of Peter J. Nickles by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter J. Nickles, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Thomas L. Koger, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Ronald B. Harris, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Terrence D. Ryan, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Andrew T. Richardson III)(Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
502 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 497 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Barham Plaintiffs' Response to the Court's Request for a Proposal for Further Discovery in Light of the Sanctionable Conduct by the District of Columbia filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
503 NOTICE of Relevancy of Recently Submitted District of Columbia Declarations to the Determination and Recommendation on the Amount of Attorneys Fees and Costs (See Docket Entry No. 500, Referring to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay) by LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON, JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER re 445 Memorandum in Opposition,,, 455 Reply to opposition to Motion,, (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
504 ORDER notifying the parties of unsolicited correspondence from former Councilmember Kathleen Patterson to the Court and setting forth further instructions to counsel. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 20, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: objections due by 8/26/2009. Responses due by 9/4/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
505 REPLY Of Defendant District Of Columbia To Barham Plaintiffs' 502 Response To The Court's Request For Proposal For Further Discovery In Light Of Sanctionable Conduct By District Of Columbia filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) Modified to add linkage on 8/24/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 08/21/2009)
506 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT Defendants' Response To Court's Order Of August 20, 2009 filed by ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
507 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to the Declaration of Peter J. Nickles Pursuant to the Court's July 30, 2009 Order by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 90 of 141

08/25/2009 08/25/2009 08/26/2009
08/28/2009
08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/31/2009 08/31/2009
08/31/2009

WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miller, Radhika) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 507 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Plaintiffs' Response to the Declaration of Peter J. Nickles shall be filed by no later than August 31, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 25, 2009. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 8/31/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
508 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 497 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Defendant Charles H. Ramsey's Response to CHANG and BARHAM Plaintiffs' Proposal for Further Discovery filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Faust, John) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
MINUTE ORDER: Having received no objection to posting the correspondence from former D.C. City Councilmember, Kathleen Patterson by the deadline set in the Court's August 20, 2009 Order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to forthwith post the correspondence received by the Court for public viewing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 28, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
509 ENTERED IN ERROR AS DOCKETED INCORRECTLY Letter from Kathleen Patterson to Chambers. (See Minute Order Filed 8/28/09). (lm ) Modified on 8/31/2009 (clv, ). (Entered: 08/28/2009)
510 ENTERED IN ERROR AS DOCKETED INCORRECTLY Letter from Kathleen Patterson to Chambers. (See Minute Order Filed 8/28/09). (lm ) Modified on 8/31/2009 (clv, ). (Entered: 08/28/2009)
511 ENTERED IN ERROR AS DOCKETED INCORRECTLY Letter from Kathleen Patterson to Chambers. (See Minute Order Filed 8/28/09). (lm ) Modified on 8/31/2009 (clv, ). (Entered: 08/28/2009)
512 ENTERED IN ERROR AS DOCKETED INCORRECTLY Letter from Kathleen Patterson to Chambers. (See Minute Order Filed 8/28/09). (lm) Modified on 8/31/2009 (clv, ). (Entered: 08/28/2009)
513 Letter with 3 attachments from former D.C. City Councilmember, Kathleen Patterson. (See Minute Order filed 8/28/09) (clv, ) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
514 RESPONSE re 513 Letter Barham Class' Response to the Representations of Kathy Patterson as They Pertain to the Loss and Destruction of the J.O.C.C. Running Resume Database filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 − Written Dep. of Ramsey)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
515 RESPONSE re 501 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) The Barham Class' Response to the Declaration of Attorney General Peter J. Nickles filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 10.7.04 Valentine Testimony, # 2 Ex. 2 12.18.07 WP Article, # 3 Ex. 3a 9.12.07 Transmittal Email, # 4 Ex. 3b 9.12.07 Letter from Messineo to Taylor, # 5 Ex. 4a 9.18.07 Transmittal Email, # 6 Ex. 4b 9.18.07 Letter from Taylor to Messineo, # 7 Ex. 5a 9.20.07 Transmittal Email, # 8 Ex. 5b 9.20.07 Letter from Messineo to Taylor, # 9 Ex. 6 10.3.07 Email from Messineo to Koger, # 10 Ex. 7 10.17.07 Email from Messineo to Counsel, # 11 Ex. 8 FY 2010 Proposed Budget, # 12 Ex. 9a August 21,

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 91 of 141

09/01/2009 09/02/2009 09/02/2009 09/15/2009 09/15/2009 09/15/2009
09/16/2009 09/16/2009

2009 Letter from Mendelson to Nickles, # 13 Ex. 9b 4.4.08 FY 2009 Statement of Peter Nickles, # 14 Ex. 9c 3.26.09 FY 2010 Statement of Peter Nickles, # 15 Ex. 10 March 30, 2007 Vinson & Elkins Invoice, # 16 Ex. 11 Declaration of Denise Alexander, # 17 Ex. 12 8.11.09 City Paper City Desk Blog)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
516 NOTICE By Plaintiffs Pertaining to Additional Late Disclosed Documents from Defendant District of Columbia by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Miller, Radhika) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
517 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT Dated August 20, 2009, To Respond To Correspondence To Court By Former Councilmember Kathleen Patterson filed by ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
518 STATUS REPORT by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
519 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to for the FBI to Respond to the Court's Order of July 30, 2009 by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 519 Consent Motion for a Brief Enlargement of Time to Respond to the Court's Order of July 30, 2009. Defendants' response shall be filed by no later than September 18, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 15, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
520 MOTION for Sanctions The Barham Class' Renewed Motion for Sanctions, and Memorandum in Support, Against the District of Columbia and Against Charles H. Ramsey by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Ex. 1, # 3 Ex. 2, # 4 Ex. 3, # 5 Ex. 4, # 6 Ex. 5, # 7 Ex. 6, # 8 Ex. 7, # 9 Ex. 8, # 10 Ex. 9, # 11 Ex. 10, # 12 Ex. 11, # 13 Ex. 12, # 14 Ex. 13, # 15 Ex. 14, # 16 Ex. 15, # 17 Ex.16a, # 18 Ex. 16b, # 19 Ex.17a, # 20 Ex. 17b, # 21 Ex.18a, # 22 Ex. 18b, # 23 Ex.19, # 24 Ex. 20, # 25 Ex. 21, # 26 Ex. 22, # 27 Ex. 23, # 28 Ex. 24, # 29 Ex. 25, # 30 Ex. 26, # 31 Ex. 27, # 32 Ex. 28, # 33 Ex. 29, # 34 Ex. 30, # 35 Ex. 31, # 36 Ex. 32, # 37 Ex. 33, # 38 Ex. 34, # 39 Ex. 35, # 40 Ex. 36, # 41 Ex. 37, # 42 Ex. 38, # 43 Ex. 39, # 44 Ex. 40, # 45 Ex. 41, # 46 Ex. 42, # 47 Ex. 43, # 48 Ex. 44, # 49 Ex. 45, # 50 Ex. 46, # 51 Ex. 47, # 52 Ex. 48, # 53 Ex. 49, # 54 Ex. 50, # 55 Ex. 51, # 56 Ex. 52, # 57 Ex. 53, # 58 Ex. 54, # 59 Ex. 55, # 60 Ex. 56, # 61 Ex. 57, # 62 Ex. 58, # 63 Ex. 59, # 64 Ex. 60, # 65 Ex. 61, # 66 Ex. 62, # 67 Ex. 63, # 68 Ex. 64, # 69 Ex. 65, # 70 Ex. 66, # 71 Ex. 67, # 72 Ex. 68, # 73 Ex. 69, # 74 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 9/18/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
521 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 07/29/09; Page Numbers: 1−45. Date of Issuance:09/16/09. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202.354.3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 92 of 141

includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

09/16/2009
09/17/2009 09/17/2009 09/18/2009 09/18/2009 09/18/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009

Redaction Request due 10/7/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/19/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/15/2009.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
522 ERRATA Submitting Corrected Version of the Barham Class' Renewed Motion for Sanctions, and Memorandum in Support, Against the District of Columbia, and Against Charles H. Ramsey (Doc. No. 520) by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM 520 MOTION for Sanctions The Barham Class' Renewed Motion for Sanctions, and Memorandum in Support, Against the District of Columbia and Against Charles H. Ramsey filed by JOHN PASSACANTANDO, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MORGAN RESS, MARY CANALES, MACDONALD SCOTT, SALLY A. NORTON, SAMANTHA YOUNG, NICOLE PRICHARD, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, WILLIAM DURHAM, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, CASEY LEGLER, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, JERI WOHLBERG, NOAH FALK, LESLEY WOOD, JOSEPH PHELAN. (Attachments: # 1 The Barham Class' Renewed Motion for Sanctions, and Memorandum in Support, Against the District of Columbia and Against Charles H. Ramsey)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
523 NOTICE by Plaintiffs Pertaining to Additional Late Disclosed Documents from Defendant District of Columbia by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
524 NOTICE of Filing of Bulky Exhibit by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM re 520 MOTION for Sanctions The Barham Class' Renewed Motion for Sanctions, and Memorandum in Support, Against the District of Columbia and Against Charles H. Ramsey (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
525 MOTION For Leave to Submit an Ex Parte, In Camera, Declaration Regarding the Search Results from VGTOF and IDW in Response to the Court's Order of July 30, 2009 by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Public Decl.), # 2 Exhibit 2 (VGTOF Bulletin), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Del Greco Decl.), # 4 Exhibit 4 (IDW FOIA Resp.), # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
526 NOTICE of Submission of Ex Parte, In Camera, Declaration by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
ORDER granting 525 FBI's motion for leave to submit an ex parte, in camera declaration regarding the search results from VGTOG and IDW in response to the Court's Order of July 30, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 18, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
527 RESPONSE re 523 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) pertaining to additional late disclosed documents filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
528 NOTICE by Plaintiffs Pertaining to Additional Late Disclosed Documents from Defendant District of Columbia by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD,

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 93 of 141

09/29/2009
09/29/2009
09/30/2009 09/30/2009 10/02/2009
10/02/2009 10/02/2009 10/05/2009 10/06/2009 10/06/2009 10/07/2009 10/09/2009
10/13/2009

SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 9/29/2009, oral motion to extention to respond to motions denied; Jury Trial set for 9/1/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 23A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan., Status Conference set for 11/17/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the representations of counsel at the status hearing on September 29, 2009, and in view of the significant number of documents recently produced by the District of Columbia to counsel for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' motion to re−open and extend discovery for six months is GRANTED; discovery shall close on March 29, 2010. The oral motion of the District of Columbia to extend the time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for sanctions is DENIED. Jury trial is scheduled for September 1, 2010. There will be a status hearing on November 17, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 29, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 3/29/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
529 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Attorney Thomas Louis Koger terminated. (Koger, Thomas) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
530 Motion for relief filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) Modified to change docket text per Minute Order(10/02/09) on 10/5/2009 (jf, ). (Entered: 10/02/2009)
531 NOTICE of Intent to Respond by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 530 Response to Order of the Court, (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs' request for clarification regarding costs associated with additional discovery will be treated as a motion for relief. Defendants shall respond, if at all, by no later than October 7, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 2, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court modifies its Order dated October 2, 2009 and directs plaintiffs to file any reply by no later than October 9, 2009. There shall be no sur−replies. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 5, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 10/9/2009. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 10/7/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
532 Memorandum in opposition to re 530 Motion for clarification filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit October 2, 2009 Email from P.J. Meitl, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
533 REPLY to opposition to motion re 530 Motion for clarification filed by JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
534 Memorandum in opposition to re 520 MOTION for Sanctions The Barham Class' Renewed Motion for Sanctions, and Memorandum in Support, Against the District of Columbia and Against Charles H. Ramsey filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/13/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 94 of 141

10/13/2009 10/13/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009
10/15/2009 10/16/2009 10/21/2009 10/21/2009 10/22/2009
10/27/2009

535 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 535 consent motion for attorney fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 13, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
536 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
537 NOTICE of Appearance by Shana Lyn Frost on behalf of CATHY L. LANIER, PETER NEWSHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 536 consent motion for attorney fees by Charles Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 15, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
538 Memorandum in opposition to re 520 MOTION for Sanctions The Barham Class' Renewed Motion for Sanctions, and Memorandum in Support, Against the District of Columbia and Against Charles H. Ramsey filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, Declaration of Peter J. Nickles, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2, September 29, 2009 Hearing Transcript, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 3, 30(b)(6) Testimony of Traci Hughes, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 4, May 15, 2009 Email from Radhika Miller, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 5, Declaration of Karen Tolson, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 6, List of Arrestees, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 7, Exampe Partial Redactions and Privilege Log, # 8 Exhibit Ex. 8, Example Duplicates, # 9 Exhibit Ex. 9, Declaration of Mafara Hobson, # 10 Exhibit Ex. 10, Declaration of Andrew T. Richardson III, # 11 Exhibit Ex. 11, Declaration of Thomas L. Koger, # 12 Exhibit Ex. 12, Declaration of Commander James O. Crane, # 13 Exhibit Ex. 13, Relevant Excerpts of Bolger Running Resume, # 14 Exhibit Ex. 14, Becker Running Resumes, # 15 Exhibit Ex. 15, Declaration of David Jackson, # 16 Exhibit Ex. 16, July 29, 2009 Hearing Transcript)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
539 Memorandum in opposition to re 520 MOTION for Sanctions The Barham Class' Renewed Motion for Sanctions, and Memorandum in Support, Against the District of Columbia and Against Charles H. Ramsey filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
540 ERRATA to Defendants District of Columbia and Charles H. Ramsey's Opposition to the Barham Class' Renewed Motion for Sanctions by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 538 Memorandum in Opposition,,,, filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
541 NOTICE of Appearance by Monique Daniel Pressley on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the 530 motion for relief, response and reply thereto, the Court hereby notifies the parties that the amount of any award of attorney fees will be determined following the completion of renewed discovery. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 21, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
542 NOTICE of Filing of Barham Plaintiffs' Response to Chang Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Order Compelling Deposition by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Barham Plaintiffs' Response to Chang Emergency Motion for Order Compelling Deposition)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
543 NOTICE of Production of Documents by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 10/27/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 95 of 141

10/29/2009
11/02/2009
11/03/2009 11/03/2009 11/03/2009 11/03/2009
11/03/2009 11/03/2009 11/03/2009

544 REPLY to opposition to motion re 520 MOTION for Sanctions The Barham Class' Renewed Motion for Sanctions, and Memorandum in Support, Against the District of Columbia and Against Charles H. Ramsey The Barham Class' Consolidated Reply to Defendant District of Columbia and Charles H. Ramsey's Opposition to Barham Class' Renewed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 538) and to Defendant Charles H. Ramsey's Response to Barham and Chang Plaintiffs' Renewed Motions for Sanctions (Doc. No. 539) filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 − 30(b)(6) Dep. of Thorpe, # 2 Ex. 2 − Doc. Numbered Prosec 00055, # 3 Ex. 3 − Fitzgerald Interview, # 4 Ex. 4 − Ramsey Dep., # 5 Ex. 5 − Broadbent Dep.)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
545 NOTICE Plaintiffs' Rule 26(b)(5)(B) Disclosure and Request for Expedited Relief by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Ex. 1 − Letter from Pressley, # 3 Ex. 2 − Filed Under Seal, # 4 Ex. 3 − Cover Letter to July 22 Production, # 5 Ex. 4 − July 27, 2009 Emails, # 6 Ex. 5 − Letter to Efros, # 7 Ex. 6 − Letter from Efros, # 8 Ex. 7 − Email from Copeland)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
546 NOTICE of Filing of Exhibit Under Seal by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM re 545 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, directs defendants to file any objections to 545 plaintiffs' request for relief, along with supporting points and authorities, by no later than 5:00 p.m. today, November 3, 2009. Any reply to defendants' submission shall be filed by no later than 6:00 p.m. today, November 3, 2009. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 3, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
547 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
548 REPLY re 547 Response to Order of the Court Plaintiffs' Reply to District of Columbia's Opposition to Request for Expedited Relief and Motion for a Protective Order filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Miller, Radhika) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
549 MOTION for Leave to File Duplicate Response to Court Order by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
550 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion for Leave to Late File Response by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
551 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Position Regarding Motion to Late File by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM re 549 MOTION for Leave to File Duplicate Response to Court Order (Miller, Radhika) (Entered: 11/03/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 96 of 141

11/03/2009
11/03/2009
11/04/2009
11/04/2009 11/05/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/10/2009
11/10/2009 11/11/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009

MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 545 plaintiffs' Rule 26(b)(5)(B) disclosure and request for expedited relief, the response and reply thereto, and substantially for the reasons articulated by plaintiffs, it is hereby ORDERED that the District of Columbia has waived any asserted attorney−client, work product, and deliberative process privileges as to the documents Bates labeled Prosec 00001−00168 and 2009.1 Supp 00358−00400 and any copies thereof. It is FURTHER ORDERED that 547 defendants' motion for protective order is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that 549 and 550 Defendants' unopposed motion for leave to late file and unopposed motion to amend/correct the motion for leave to late file are GRANTED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 3, 2009. (lcegs2 ) Modified on 11/3/2009 (lcegs2, ). (Entered: 11/03/2009)
552 SEALED Exhibit 2 to # 545 Plaintiffs Rule 26(b)(5)(B) Disclosure and Request for Expedited Relief filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(zjf, ) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the flurry of discovery related matters that have occurred in the past few days, and that undoubtedly will continue to occur in the future, this case is hereby referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola for resolution of discovery disputes. By no later than 12:00 p.m. on November 10, 2009, plaintiffs are directed to file their proposed discovery plan for renewed discovery attributed to the District of Columbia's belated production of discovery; any response to the plaintiffs' plan shall be filed by no later than 12:00 p.m. on November 12, 2009. Requests for extensions of time to respond to this Order will be viewed with disfavor. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 4, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
554 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola for discovery resolution. (kb) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
553 MOTION for Protective Order for Confidential Information by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Proposed Protective Order))(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
555 NOTICE of Production of Documents by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
556 NOTICE of Filing of Declaration of Peter J. Nickles by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 501 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Peter J. Nickles, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Chad Copeland)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
557 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, Plaintiffs' Proposed Discovery Plan filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
558 ORDER re referral to Judge Facciola for discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 11/10/09. (SP, ) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
559 NOTICE of Appearance by Monique Daniel Pressley on behalf of CATHY L. LANIER, PETER NEWSHAM (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/11/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Discovery Plan due by 12:00 p.m. on 11/10/2009. Responses due by 12:00 on 11/12/2009 (clv, ) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
560 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, _Response to Plaintiffs' Proposed Discovery Plans_ filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 97 of 141

11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/13/2009 11/17/2009 11/17/2009 11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/18/2009
11/19/2009

561 RESPONSE re 557 Response to Order of the Court, filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
562 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, to Respond to Discovery Plan filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
563 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Response to Discovery Plan by CATHY L. LANIER, PETER NEWSHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Response to Discovery Plan)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
564 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by PETER NEWSHAM (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 563 unopposed motion for leave to file a response to discovery plan. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 12, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 564 unopposed motion for leave to file a response to discovery plan. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 12, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
565 RESPONSE re Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan for Renewed Discovery filed by CATHY L. LANIER, PETER NEWSHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (znmw, ) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
566 MOTION for Protective Order for Deposition of MPD Detective Paul Hustler by CATHY L. LANIER, PETER NEWSHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 11/17/2009, Status Conference set for 12/17/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the discussion at the status hearing held today, a status hearing is scheduled for December 17, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 17, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
567 NOTICE of Affidavit Filed by MPD Detective Paul E. Hustler by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 − Affidavit of Paul E. Hustler, # 2 Ex. 2 − McClean Dep, # 3 Ex. 3 − 9.19.07 Ramsey Dep, # 4 Ex. 4 − Council Report, # 5 Ex. 5 − 9.18.07 Ramsey Dep, # 6 Ex. 6 − 2.9.04 Ramsey Decl, # 7 Ex. 7 − 10.15.03 Ramsey Decl)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
568 NOTICE of Filing of Bulky Exhibit by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM re 567 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
569 RESPONSE re 566 MOTION for Protective Order for Deposition of MPD Detective Paul Hustler filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
570 Memorandum in opposition to re 553 MOTION for Protective Order for Confidential Information filed by NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON,

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 98 of 141

11/20/2009 11/24/2009 11/25/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/08/2009 12/10/2009
12/17/2009 12/18/2009
12/21/2009 12/21/2009

JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN, MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Ex. 1 − August 3, 2006 Opinion in Bolger, # 3 Ex. 2 − 1976 Committee Report, # 4 Ex. 3 − 11.5.09 Pressley Email, # 5 Ex. 4 − 11.17.09 Transcript Excerpt)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
571 RESPONSE re 567 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
572 REPLY to opposition to motion re 553 MOTION for Protective Order for Confidential Information filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
573 RESPONSE re 567 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
574 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
ORDER granting 574 Motion for Attorney Fees by Peter Newsham. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 4, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
575 NOTICE of Filing of Report of Stanley Sporkin by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 501 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Stanley Sporkin on Certain Discovery Issues Emanating from Litigation Arising out of the Pershing Park Incident of September 27, 2002)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
576 NOTICE of Filing of Corrected Report of Stanley Sporkin by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 501 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected "Report of Stanley Sporkin on Certain Discovery Issues Emanating from Litigation Arising out of the Pershing Park Incident of September 27, 2002" with cover letter)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
577 ERRATA Regarding Notice of Filing of Corrected Report by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 501 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Stanley Sporkin on Certain Discovery Issues Emanating from Litigation Arising out of the Pershing Park Incident of September 27, 2002 with complete cover letter)(Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 12/17/2009, Status Conference set for 2/11/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter KATHRYN JONES.) (clv, ) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the status hearing held on December 17, 2009, it is hereby ORDERED that by no later than noon on January 5, 2010, the parties shall submit the names of three forensic evaluation experts to be considered by the Court for appointment to address and respond to the issues raised in the report of retired United States District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin, along with projected estimates of time and expense for each potential expert. If the parties are unable to agree on three proposed forensic evaluation experts, plaintiffs and defendant District of Columbia shall separately submit respective lists of not more than three names to be considered by the Court. It is further ORDERED that pursuant to the Court's ruling on December 17, 2009, the deposition of Detective Paul Hustler shall be taken by defendant United States and other defendants as appropriate, and shall take place at a time and place agreed upon by the parties. Until final approval of any settlement in any case, the original trial dates shall remain as scheduled. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 18, 2009. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
578 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
MINUTE ORDER granting 578 consent motion for attorney fees by Charles Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 21, 2009. (lcegs2) (Entered:

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 99 of 141

12/22/2009 01/05/2010
01/05/2010 01/05/2010
01/10/2010 01/11/2010 01/13/2010
01/15/2010

12/21/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: The names of three forensic evaluation experts shall be submitted to the Court by 1/5/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
579 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,, Submission of Names of Potential Forensic Evaluation Experts, Filed Jointly by the Barham Plaintiffs and the District of Columbia Defendants, as Required Pursuant to December 18, 2009 Court Order filed by MARY CANALES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 − Jan. 4, 2010 Email from Stroz Friedburg)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
580 NOTICE Regarding Rationale for Proposed Forensic Expert by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER re 579 Response to Order of the Court,, Order,,,, (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
581 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 579 Response to Order of the Court,, Barham Plaintiffs' Submission of Rationale for Adopting the Proposal Submitted by Stroz Friedberg filed by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 − 12.23.09 Meitl Email, # 2 Ex. 2 − 12.30.09 Messineo Email, # 3 Ex. 3 − 12.28.09 Messineo Email, # 4 Ex. 4 − Stark cv, # 5 Ex. 5 − Padres cv, # 6 Ex. 6 − Smith cv, # 7 Ex. 7 − 12.21.09 Messineo Email, # 8 Ex. 8 − 12.30.09 Meitl Email, # 9 Ex. 9 − 12.31.09 Messineo Email, # 10 Ex. 10 − Younger cv, # 11 Ex. 11 − Larson cv, # 12 Ex. 12 − Valenti bio, # 13 Ex. 13 − Stroz Friedberg Corporate Brochure, # 14 Ex. 14 − Stroz Friedberg Brochure Experience as a Neutral, # 15 Ex. 15 − Tom Owen cv, # 16 Ex. 16 − About Duff & Phelps printout, # 17 Ex. 17 − 12.22.09 Meitl Email)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. By no later than 6:00 p.m. on January 13, 2010, the parties are directed to file a proposed order for the appointment of Stroz Friedberg as a forensic evaluation expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706, setting forth the rationale for the appointment, the proposed duties of Stroz Friedberg, the scope of phase one of the appointment, the time frame for completion of phase one, the costs for phase one, the consent of Stroz Friedberg to be appointed as an expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706, and the terms of compensation and payment also reflecting the consent of Stroz Friedberg. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 10, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 01/10/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: parties proposed order due by 1/13/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
582 NOTICE of Proposed Order Re: Appointment of Stroz Friedberg Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706 by JEFFREY BARHAM, MARY CANALES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, BRIAN MCATEER, SEAN MCATEER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re Order,, (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order For Appointment of Stroz Friedberg Pursuant to Fed R Evid 706, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Consent letter from Stroz Friedberg)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, schedules a status hearing on January 20, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A to discuss the appointment of a forensic evaluation expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. The Court requests the presence of John Reed Stark, Managing Director of Stroz Friedberg, LLC, at the status hearing to respond to any questions the Court may have regarding its potential appointment of a forensic evaluation expert. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 15, 2010. (lcegs1) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 100 of 141

01/15/2010 01/18/2010 01/19/2010 01/22/2010 01/23/2010 01/25/2010 01/26/2010 01/27/2010
01/27/2010

583 MOTION to Continue January 20, 2010 Status Hearing to Discuss Appointment of Forensic Expert by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miller, Radhika) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 583 motion to continue status hearing. The status hearing currently scheduled for January 20, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the appointment of a forensic evaluation expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706 is continued to January 25, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. The Court requests the presence of John Reed Stark, Managing Director of Stroz Friedberg, LLC, at the status hearing to respond to any questions the Court may have regarding its potential appointment of a forensic evaluation expert. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 18, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/25/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
584 NOTICE by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re Order on Motion to Continue,, Set/Reset Hearings (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to the unavailability of Attorney General Peter Nickels on January 25, 2010, the hearing scheduled for 1:00 p.m. will be rescheduled for January 26, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 23, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 01/23/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. At the status hearing scheduled for tomorrow, January 26, 2010 at 2:00 p.m., the parties shall be prepared to address the Court's authority to grant immunity to a forensics evaluation expert appointed by the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 25, 2010. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 1/26/2010; Status Conference set for 2/11/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. During the status hearing held on January 26, 2010, the Court asked Stroz Friedberg to give a "Scope and Sequence" presentation to the Court on February 11, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. regarding its proposed duties and responsibilities as a forensic evaluation expert in this case. The purpose of the requested presentation is to provide an overview of the forensic evaluation work that can be done to address the issues raised by the report of retired United States District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin. In its presentation, the Court requests that Stroz Friedberg provide an overview of both "Phase I" and "Phase II" of its proposed services as set forth in the 579 joint submission of the Barham plaintiffs and the District of Columbia defendants on January 5, 2010, as well as cost projections for "Phase II." The Court is sensitive to Stroz Friedberg's concern that it has not "taken part in any engagements relating to this litigation and [that it has] limited knowledge [and] experience with the recordkeeping capabilities of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department." Ex. 1 to Docket 579. Nevertheless, a presentation of the potential scope of duties − and the related costs − associated with "Phase II" is required to assist the Court in its consideration of whether to proceed with a Court−appointed forensic evaluation expert. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the District of Columbia shall file a memorandum of law on the issue of whether the Court may grant immunity to an expert appointed under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 by no later than February 4, 2010. In its memorandum, the District of Columbia shall address the propriety of granting absolute versus qualified immunity to a court−appointed expert. Responses shall be filed by no later than February 8, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 27, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 01/27/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: District of Columbia's memorandum due by 2/4/2010. Response to the memorandum due by 2/8/2010 (clv, ) (Entered: 01/27/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 101 of 141

02/04/2010 02/10/2010
02/12/2010 02/12/2010
02/13/2010
02/16/2010 02/16/2010 02/17/2010 02/17/2010 02/19/2010 02/19/2010
02/19/2010 02/19/2010 02/19/2010 02/20/2010

585 MEMORANDUM re Order,,,,,,, by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
MINUTE ORDER: Due to the Court's calendar it is necessary to vacate the Scope & Sequence Presentation date of 2/11/10. The Scope & Sequence Presentation is now set for 2/24/2010 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 2/10/10. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
586 NOTICE REGARDING ATTORNEY GENERAL NICKLES' SCHEDULING CONFLICT FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2010 SCOPE AND SEQUENCE PRESENTATION by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Due to the unavailability of Attorney General Peter Nickels on February 24, 2010, the Scope and Sequence Presentation scheduled for February 24, 2010 will be rescheduled for February 23, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A.Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 12, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. By no later than 4:00 p.m. on February 19, 2010, in pleadings of not more than ten pages each, the parties shall address the propriety of, and the authority for, the Court to appoint Stroz Friedberg as a Special Master pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. Further, the Court requests Stroz Friedberg to likewise file a similar pleading by no later than 4:00 p.m. on February 19, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 13, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 02/13/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: parties presentation due by 4:00 p.m. on 2/19/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Scope and Sequence Presentation is now set for 2/23/2010 03:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
587 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, Appointment of Stroz Friedberg as Special Master filed by PETER NEWSHAM. (Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
588 REPLY to Chang Plaintiffs' Response Regarding Quasi−Judicial Immunity filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
589 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
590 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, Barham Plaintiffs' Submission Regarding Appointment of Stroz Friedberg as a Special Master, as Required Pursuant to February 13, 2010 Minute Order filed by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
591 MEMORANDUM by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
592 Unopposed MOTION for Order Excusing Attorney General Nickles' Attendance by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 589 consent motion for attorney fees by Peter Newsham. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 19, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court requests that during the "Scope and Sequence" presentation at the status hearing on February 23, 2010, Stroz Friedberg include an overview of its capabilities, resources, and estimated costs to forensically examine the video footage produced by the District of Columbia in this litigation in order to assist the Court in understanding the cause, extent, and effect of various discrepancies in the videotapes. See Docket No. 600 in Civil Action 02−2283, Chang, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al, Chang plaintiffs' response to District of Columbia memorandum regarding immunity for a court appointed forensic expert and request to expand the scope of Stroz Friedberg Presentation, at 12−22 (discussing discrepancies in videotapes produced by the District of Columbia). Signed by Judge Emmet G.

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 102 of 141

02/20/2010 02/23/2010 02/26/2010 03/02/2010 03/03/2010 03/03/2010 03/04/2010
03/05/2010
03/09/2010 03/25/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010

Sullivan on February 20, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 02/20/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 592 unopposed motion for order excusing Attorney General Nickels' attendance at the February 23, 2010 Scope and Sequence presentation and to excuse his mandatory appearance at future hearings, unless absolutely required by the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 20, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 02/20/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference (Scope and Sequence Presentation) held on 2/23/2010. District of Columbia submission due by 2/26/2010; Status Conference set for 3/2/2010 02:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
593 NOTICE Regarding Indemnification Issue by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re Status Conference, Set Deadlines/Hearings,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (DC Standard Supplies and Services Contract))(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the status hearing on March 2, 2010, by no later than 4:00 p.m. on March 4, 2010, the parties are directed to file any proposed orders for the transcription of audio tapes and copying of video tapes. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 2, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 3/3/2010. Order to be presented. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: parties proposed orders for the transcription of audio tapes and copying of video tapes due by 4:00 p.m. on 3/4/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
594 NOTICE of Proposed Order Notice of Submission of Proposed Order Pertaining to Certain Video Duplication Costs by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re Order, (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/04/2010)
595 Joint MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement, Notice to Class and Notice of Fairness Hearing by MARY CANALES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Ex. 1 − Proposed Settlement Agreement, # 4 Ex. 2 − Notice to Class, # 5 Ex. 3 − Proof of Claim Form, # 6 Ex. 4 − Becker Settlement Agreement, # 7 Ex. 5 − First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004, # 8 Ex. 6 − Gilardi Firm Materials)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/05/2010)
596 ORDER Regarding Duplication of Video Footage. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 9, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, schedules a status hearing for March 29, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5. PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN COURTROOM. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 25, 2010. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/29/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court has been informed that defendant District of Columbia is unavailable for the previously scheduled status hearing on March 29, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. Accordingly, the status hearing is rescheduled for March 30, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. Counsel are directed to immediately inform the Court of any party's unavailability at that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 26, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/26/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 103 of 141

03/26/2010 03/29/2010
03/30/2010 03/30/2010 03/30/2010
03/30/2010 03/30/2010
03/31/2010 03/31/2010
03/31/2010 04/06/2010 04/06/2010

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/30/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 5 before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
597 NOTICE of First Amendment to Settlement Agreement by MARY CANALES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 595 Joint MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement, Notice to Class and Notice of Fairness Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 − First Amendment to Settlement Agreement)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. NOTICE OF COURTROOM CHANGE: The parties are informed that the status conference scheduled for March 30, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. will be held in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Main Building. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 30, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 3/30/2010. Order to be presented. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
598 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order by MARY CANALES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 595 Joint MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement, Notice to Class and Notice of Fairness Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
599 ORDER granting 595 Joint MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement, Notice to Class and Notice of Fairness Hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 30, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
600 NOTICE of Filing of Revised Notice to Class by MARY CANALES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, LAURY SALIGMAN, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 597 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 598 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Notice to Class)(Verheyden−Hilliard, Mara) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Class Administrator Report due by 8/1/2010; Responses to any objections due by 9/1/2010; Fairness Hearing set for 9/17/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the Court's representation at the hearing on March 30, 2010 that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, it intends to appoint Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola as a Special Master to investigate the potential destruction of evidence in this case, the parties are directed to notify the Court by no later than April 9, 2010 whether there are any objections to his appointment. The parties are further directed to include in this notification any recommendations for the scope of Magistrate Judge Facciola's authority as Special Master. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 31, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: objections due by 4/9/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
601 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 601 consent motion for attorney fees by Charles Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 6, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 04/06/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 104 of 141

04/08/2010 04/09/2010
04/09/2010 04/12/2010
04/15/2010 04/30/2010
04/30/2010 05/03/2010 05/05/2010 05/07/2010 05/07/2010 05/07/2010 05/10/2010

602 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, dated 3−31−2010 appointing Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola_ filed by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
603 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, Barham Plaintiff's Response to the Notice and Opportunity to be Heard Regarding Appointment of Special Master filed by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
604 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, Regarding Appointment of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola as Special Master filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
605 NOTICE of Filing of Amended Response to the Notice and Opportunity to be Heard Regarding Appointment of Special Master by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 604 Response to Order of the Court (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A − Plaintiff's Amended Response to the Notice and Opportunity to be Heard Regarding Appointment of Special Master)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
606 Declaration of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 4/15/10. (SP, ) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
607 NOTICE of Filing of Amended Notice to Class by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A − Notice to Class)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. By no later than May 7, 2010, the parties are directed to inform the Court whether the parties have reached a resolution regarding 309 and 401 motions for attorney's fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 30, 2010. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: parties are to inform the Court whether they have reached a resolution regarding certain motions by 5/7/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
608 ORDER appointing United States Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola as Special Master. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 5, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
609 MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
610 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Inform the Court Whether the Parties Have Reached a Resolution Regarding 309 and 401 Motions for Attorney's Fees by JEFFREY BARHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BRIAN MCATEER, LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miller, Radhika) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 610 joint motion for extension of time. By no later than May 21, 2010, the parties are directed to inform the Court whether they have reached a resolution regarding 309 and 401 motions for attorney's fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 7, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: The parties are directed to inform the Court whether they have reached a resolution regarding document numbers 309 and 401 by 5/21/2010. (clv, )

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 105 of 141

05/10/2010 05/14/2010 05/20/2010 05/20/2010
05/21/2010 06/01/2010 06/10/2010 06/11/2010
06/14/2010 06/16/2010 06/21/2010 06/22/2010 07/09/2010 07/15/2010
07/20/2010

(Entered: 05/10/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 609 consent motion for attorney fees by Peter Newsham. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 10, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
611 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADRIAN M. FENTY, CATHY L. LANIER, PETER NEWSHAM. Attorney Chad Wayne Copeland terminated. (Copeland, Chad) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
612 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Inform the Court Whether the Parties Have Reached a Resolution Regarding 309 and 401 Motions for Attorneys' Fees by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Efros, Ellen) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 612 consent motion for enlargement of time to inform the court whether the parties have reached a resolution regarding 309 and 401 motions for attorneys' fees. The parties shall inform the court by no later than June 11, 2010 whether they have reached a resolution regarding 309 and 401 motions for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 20, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: parties shall inform the court by 6/11/2010 whether they have reached a resolution regarding certain motions. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
613 NOTICE of Change of Address by Mark Henry Tuohey, III (Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
614 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Inform the Court Whether the Parties Have Reached A Resolution Regarding 309 and 401 Motions for Attorney's Fees by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Efros, Ellen) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 614 consent motion for enlargement of time to inform the court whether the parties have reached a resolution regarding 309 and 401 motions for attorneys' fees. The parties shall inform the court by no later than June 18, 2010 whether they have reached a resolution regarding 309 and 401 motions for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 11, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: parties submission regarding possible resolution of two motions due by 6/18/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
615 STATUS REPORT To Inform The Court That The Parties Have Reached A Resolution Regarding 309 and 401 Motions for Attorneys' Fees by JEFFREY BARHAM, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Efros, Ellen) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
616 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Faust, John) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 616 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 22, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
617 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only). Attorney John Martin Faust terminated. (Faust, John) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
MINUTE ORDER, The Court sua sponte strikes 618 Response as Objection to Proposed Settlement due to the objectors' failure to follow the instructions for filing objections to the proposed settlement as set forth in 595 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval, Ex. 4, Notice to Class. Objectors and their attorneys are directed not to file any further pleadings on the docket of this case without first seeking leave of this Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 15, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
619 NOTICE Praecipe Notifying the Court that the Parties Have Resolved Costs and Fees Litigation (Docs. No. 309 and 401), and Withdrawing Motion for Attorneys' Fees by JEFFREY BARHAM, BRIAN MCATEER, LAURY SALIGMAN, MILES SWANSON re 615 Status Report (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/20/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 106 of 141

07/27/2010 07/27/2010
07/28/2010 08/02/2010 08/02/2010
08/10/2010
08/21/2010 08/23/2010 08/30/2010 08/30/2010 09/01/2010
09/01/2010

620 Joint MOTION to Continue Trial by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RICHARD MURPHY, KENNETH SALAZAR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 620 plaintiffs' and federal defendants' joint motion to continue the trial in this matter so the parties may engage in settlement negotiations, it is hereby ORDERED that the trial date is continued pending further order of this Court. If, at any point in time, the parties desire to have a mediator from the District Court's mediation program appointed to assist with settlement discussions, the parties shall electronically file a motion captioned "Joint Motion for Appointment of a Mediator." If this case settles in whole or part before November 1, 2010, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than November 1, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 27, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 11/1/2010 (clv, ) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
621 NOTICE of Appearance by David W. Buckley on behalf of PETER NEWSHAM (Buckley, David) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
622 NOTICE of Filing of Class Administrator's Initial Report by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Attachments: # 1 Barham Class Administrator's Initial Report)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. In view of the fact that the court has preliminarily approved the settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the District defendants, and accordingly that discovery between these parties is no longer active, the Court DENIES 553 the District's Motion for a Protective Order. The denial is without prejudice to refiling in the event the parties are again engaged in discovery in this matter. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 10, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, schedules a status hearing regarding the upcoming fairness hearing in this matter for September 8, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 21, 2010. (lcegs1) (Entered: 08/21/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 9/8/2010 12:45 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan regarding the upcoming fairness hearing. (dot, ) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
MINUTE ORDER rescheduling the status hearing regarding the upcoming fairness hearing. The status hearing will take place on September 8, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Please note the time change. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 30, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 9/8/2010 10:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
623 RESPONSE Joint Response to the Timely Objection Letter from Genevieve Rosloff and to the Untimely Letter from Nicholas Kappos filed by MARY CANALES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, MILES SWANSON, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 − Genevieve Rosloff Letter, # 2 Ex. 2 − Nicholas Kappos Letter, # 3 Ex. 3 − Miller Affidavit)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
624 PARTIAL RESPONSE The Barham Class' Response to Objections by Chang Plaintiffs to Settlement of the Class Action filed by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 107 of 141

09/01/2010 09/03/2010
09/03/2010 09/07/2010 09/07/2010 09/07/2010 09/07/2010
09/08/2010

DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 − Transcript of Dec. 17 − 18, 2003 D.C. Council Proceedings)(Messineo, Carl) Modified on 9/9/2010. The complete response is found in Document 631 . (jeb, ). (Entered: 09/01/2010)
625 RESPONSE re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief District Response Regarding Chang Plaintiffs Objections to Barham Class Settlement Agreement filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
MIINUTE ORDER. On September 3, 2010, the plaintiffs in Chang v. United States, Case No. 02−2010, filed a motion for leave to file on the public record Chang plaintiffs' objection to the proposed settlement in Barham v. Ramsey. On September 3, 2010, this Court issued a minute order in the Chang case directing Chang plaintiffs to file their motion on the docket in this case. The Barham plaintiffs and the District Defendants that are party to the proposed class settlement in this case are directed to respond to the Chang plaintiffs' motion for leave to file by no later than Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. In their submission(s) Barham plaintiffs and the District Defendants are directed to explain why the Chang plaintiffs' objection should not appear on the public docket, particularly in light of the fact that the other objections to the settlement have been filed on the docket as attachments to 623 Joint Response to the Objections. No further responses or replies to the motion shall be filed. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 3, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
626 MOTION for Leave to File on the Public Record Chang Plaintiffs Objection to the Proposed Settlement in Barham v. Ramsey by RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Snyder, Ivan) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 2:00 p.m. on 9/7/2010 (clv, ) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
627 RESPONSE re 626 MOTION for Leave to File on the Public Record Chang Plaintiffs Objection to the Proposed Settlement in Barham v. Ramsey filed by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
628 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,, Regarding Chang Plaintiffs' Request to File Objections on the Public Record filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
629 Joint MOTION for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and Payment Distribution re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief granting 595 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement by MARY CANALES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Ex. 1 − Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval, # 3 Ex. 2 − Transcript of Fairness Hearing in Becker, # 4 Ex. 3 − Cozzi Declaration, # 5 Ex. 4 − Supplemental Cozzi Declaration, # 6 Ex. 5 − Messineo Declaration, # 7 Ex. 6 − Barham Proposed Settlement Agreement, # 8 Ex. 7 − First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004, # 9 Ex. 8 − becker Settlement Agreement)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
630 NOTICE of Filing of Bulky Exhibit by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS,

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 108 of 141

09/08/2010 09/08/2010 09/09/2010
09/13/2010

MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 629 Joint MOTION for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and Payment Distribution re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief granting 595 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class SettlementJoint MOTION for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and Payment Distribution re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief granting 595 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class SettlementJoint MOTION for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and Payment Distribution re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief granting 595 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class SettlementJoint MOTION for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and Payment Distribution re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief granting 595 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 9/8/2010. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
631 RESPONSE to Objections (Refiled) Pursuant to September 8, 2010 Hearing filed by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. At the status hearing on September 8, 2010, the Court considered, inter alia, 626 Chang v. United States plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their objections to 595 the proposed settlement in Barham v. Ramsey on the public record. For the reasons stated on the record during the status hearing, the Chang plaintiffs are not bound by any portion of 595 the proposed class action settlement in Barham v. Ramsey, 02−2283. Accordingly, as the Chang plaintiffs admitted both in their written objections and during the status hearing on September 8, 2010, their objections to the proposed settlement are not properly before the Court. Nevertheless, in the interest of transparency and of preserving a complete record in this case, the Court concluded that the Chang objections should appear on the public record and directed Barham plaintiffs to re−file their response to the Chang plaintiffs' objections, and to include those objections as an attachment to the response. The Barham plaintiffs have done so, see 631 Response to Objections refiled pursuant to September 8, 2010 hearing. Accordingly, the relief requested in 626 has been GRANTED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 9, 2010. (lcegs4) Modified on 9/9/2010 (clv, ). (Entered: 09/09/2010)
632 NOTICE of Filing of Second Supplemental Declaration of the Class Administrator by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 629 Joint MOTION for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and Payment Distribution re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief granting 595 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class SettlementJoint MOTION for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and Payment Distribution re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief granting 595 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class SettlementJoint MOTION for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and Payment Distribution re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief granting 595 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class SettlementJoint MOTION for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and Payment Distribution re 599 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief granting 595 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement (Attachments: # 1 Second Supplemental Declaration of Class Administrator)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 109 of 141

09/13/2010 09/16/2010 09/16/2010 09/16/2010 09/17/2010 09/20/2010 09/20/2010 09/20/2010
09/20/2010
09/20/2010
09/21/2010

Set/Reset Hearings: Fairness Hearing set for 9/17/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
633 MOTION to Set Additional Hearing Prior to a Decision on Settlement Approval Or In the Alternative for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Regarding Chang Plaintiffs' Opt−Out Status by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
634 MOTION for Leave to File a Response to the District's Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order Regarding Chang Plaintiffs' Opt Out Status and To Be Heard at the September 17, 2010 Fairness Hearing by RAYMING CHANG, AMY CHASTAIN, YOUNG CHOI, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Response to District's Motion)(Kramer, Jacob) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
635 NOTICE of Correction by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 633 MOTION to Set Additional Hearing Prior to a Decision on Settlement Approval Or In the Alternative for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Regarding Chang Plaintiffs' Opt−Out Status (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Fairness Hearing begun on 9/17/2010; Fairness Hearing resumes on 9/22/2010 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan; plaintiff's Response to motion due by 9/20/2010; defendant's Reply due by 9/21/2010. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (zclv, ) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
636 LETTER, dated September 6, 2010, from Paul A. Vaughn to Clerk of Court. "Let this be filed, 9/17/10". Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 17, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
637 NOTICE Regarding Proposed Settlement by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
638 RESPONSE re 633 MOTION to Set Additional Hearing Prior to a Decision on Settlement Approval Or In the Alternative for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Regarding Chang Plaintiffs' Opt−Out Status, 637 Notice (Other) Unopposed Submission that the Motion [Dkt. No. 633] is Rendered Moot by the District's Withdrawal of Objections [Dkt. No. 637] filed by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the representations contained in 633 District of Columbia's motion to set additional hearing or in the alternative for reconsideration of the Court's September 8, 2010 ruling in open court, the Court's September 19, 2010 Opinion and Order in Chang et al v. United States, Civ. Action No. 02−2010, the subsequent 637 notice by District of Columbia regarding the proposed settlement, and 638 plaintiffs' unopposed submission that 633 the District's motion be denied as moot, it is hereby ORDERED that 633 District's motion to set additional hearing or in the alternative for reconsideration of the September 8, 2010 ruling is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 20, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
MINUTE ORDER denying 634 motion by plaintiffs in Chang v. United States, Civ. Action No. 02−2010 for leave to file response to 633 District of Columbia's motion to reconsider the Court's order regarding Chang plaintiffs' opt out status, and to be heard at the fairness hearing. As set forth in the Court's minute order of September 20, 2010, 633 the District's motion has been denied as moot; accordingly, no response is warranted. With respect to Chang plaintiffs' request to be heard at the fairness hearing, this Court's September 8, 2010 order on the record in Chang v. United States, Civ. Action No. 02−2010 established that Chang plaintiffs are not bound by the Barham settlement. Accordingly, Chang plaintiffs' request to be heard at the fairness hearing regarding that settlement is denied. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 20, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
639 Stricken from the record pursuant to the Minute Order entered 11/23/10 Letter from Kristopher K. Baumann (Chairman,FOP) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 thru 8) "Let this be filed" by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan(jf, ) Modified on 11/23/2010 (clv, ). (Entered:

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 110 of 141

09/22/2010 09/22/2010 09/22/2010 09/23/2010
10/07/2010 10/11/2010
10/28/2010
10/29/2010 11/01/2010 11/03/2010
11/04/2010

09/21/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Fairness Hearing held on 9/22/2010. Motions for attorney fees denied. Order to be presesnted. (Court Reporter CATALINA KERR.) (clv, ) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
640 ORDER granting 629 Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement and Payment Distribution. Setting forth instruction to the parties.. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/22/10. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
641 MOTION to Strike 639 Letter of Kristopher K. Baumann and Attached Materials by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order by Superior Court Judge Retchin)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the Court's final approval of the settlement agreement in this case, which, inter alia, "discharge[s] the District of Columbia, its officers, agents and employees for all claims arising from or that could have been asserted by plaintiffs and/or accepting class members as a result of the allegations in the complaint under any theory of liability (including any request for attorney's fees and costs in prosecuting this case including any discovery disputes), including any such claims or lawsuits in any other proceeding or forum[,]" the Court hereby DENIES WITH PREJUDICE 520 the Barham class' renewed motion for sanctions. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 23, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/23/2010)
642 Letter from Pola Sieverding. "Let this be filed" by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (jf, ) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
643 RESPONSE re 641 MOTION to Strike 639 Letter of Kristopher K. Baumann and Attached Materials filed by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
MINUTE ORDER. On October 21, 2010, the Special Master filed a Preliminary Report on the public docket in Chang v. U.S., Case No. 02−2010, Doc. No. 712. On October 25, 2010, this Court posted a minute order, also on the Chang v. U.S. docket, responding to the Preliminary Report. In the minute order, the Court, inter alia, ordered the District of Columbia to show cause why the Special Master should not be able to examine certain witness statements and to show cause why the Special Master's investigation should not be expanded in certain respects. The Court's October 25, 2010 minute order directed the District to respond to the show cause order by no later than November 1, 2010, and plaintiffs to reply by no later than November 8, 2010. Should the Barham plaintiffs wish to reply to the District's response to the order to show cause, they are directed to do so by no later than November 8, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 28, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's reply to Show Cause due by 11/8/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
644 STATUS REPORT (Joint: Federal Defendants and Plaintiffs) by RICHARD MURPHY, KENNETH SALAZAR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting the parties' 644 joint request for additional time to engage in settlement negotiations. If, at any point in time, the parties desire to have a mediator from the District Court's mediation program appointed to assist with settlement discussions, the parties shall electronically file a motion captioned "Joint Motion for Appointment of a Mediator." If this case settles in whole or part before January 7, 2011, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than January 7, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 3, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 1/7/2011 (clv, ) (Entered: 11/04/2010)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 111 of 141

11/08/2010
11/08/2010
11/09/2010 11/10/2010
11/10/2010 11/12/2010 11/23/2010 01/06/2011
01/06/2011
01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011

645 Joint MOTION for Order Authorizing Disbursement of Funds by MARY CANALES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Verheyden−Hilliard, Mara) (Entered: 11/08/2010)
646 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, Barham Class' Response Regarding the Special Master's Request for Guidance filed by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/08/2010)
647 ORDER granting 645 Motion for Order Authorizing Disbursement of Funds. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 9, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
MINUTE ORDER directing the parties' attention to the November 10, 2010 minute order on the public docket in Chang v. U.S., Case No. 02−2010. The minute order resolves the issues raised in the Special Master's Preliminary Report filed on the docket in Chang v. U.S., Doc. No. 712, and referenced on the Barham v. Ramsey docket in the Court's October 28, 2010 minute order and in the 646 Barham plaintiffs' response to Order of the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 10, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
648 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
ORDER granting 648 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees by Charles Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 12, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting as unopposed 641 District of Columbia's motion to strike 639 letter of Kristopher K. Baumann and attached materials. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 23, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
649 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report of Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Verheyden−Hilliard, Mara) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting the parties' 649 joint request for additional time to engage in settlement negotiations. If this case settles in whole or in part before March 7, 2011, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than March 7, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 6, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report or stipulation due by 3/7/2011 (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
650 SEALED ORDER No. 1 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
651 SEALED ORDER NO. 2 This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons). Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
652 SEALED ORDER NO. 3 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
653 SEALED ORDER NO. 4 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 112 of 141

01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011

654 SEALED ORDER NO. 5 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
655 SEALED ORDER NO. 6 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
656 SEALED ORDER NO. 7 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
657 SEALED ORDER NO. 8 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
658 SEALED ORDER NO. 9 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
659 SEALED ORDER NO. 10 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
660 SEALED ORDER NO. 11 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
661 SEALED ORDER NO. 12 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
662 SEALED ORDER NO. 13 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
663 SEALED ORDER NO. 14 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
664 SEALED ORDER NO 15 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
665 SEALED ORDER NO. 16 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
666 SEALED ORDER NO. 17 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
667 SEALED ORDER NO. 18 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
668 SEALED ORDER NO. 19 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
669 SEALED ORDER NO. 20 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
670 SEALED ORDER NO. 21 (This document is SEALED only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
671 SEALED ORDER NO 22 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
672 SEALED ORDER NO. 23 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 113 of 141

01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011

673 SEALED ORDER NO. 24 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
674 SEALED ORDER NO. 25 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
675 SEALED ORDER NO. 26 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
676 SEALED ORDER NO. 27 This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
677 SEALED ORDER NO. 28 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
678 SEALED ORDER NO. 29 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
679 SEALED ORDER NO. 30 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
680 SEALED ORDER NO. 31 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
681 SEALED ORDER NO. 32 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
682 SEALED ORDER NO. 33 (This document is SEALED only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
683 SEALED ORDER NO. 34 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
684 SEALED ORDER NO. 35 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
685 SEALED ORDER NO. 36 This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
686 SEALED ORDER NO. 37 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
687 SEALED ORDER NO. 38 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
688 SEALED ORDER NO. 39 This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
689 SEALED ORDER NO. 40 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
690 SEALED ORDER NO. 41 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 114 of 141

01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011

691 SEALED ORDER NO. 42 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
692 SEALED ORDER NO. 43 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
693 SEALED ORDER NO. 44 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
694 SEALED ORDER NO. 45 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ). (Entered: 01/07/2011)
695 SEALED ORDER NO. 46 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
696 SEALED ORDER NO. 47 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
697 SEALED ORDER NO. 48 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
698 SEALED ORDER NO 49 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
699 SEALED ORDER NO. 50 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
700 SEALED ORDER NO. 51 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
701 SEALED ORDER NO. 52 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
702 SEALED ORDER NO. 54 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Main Document 702 replaced on 1/24/2011) (ztcb, ). (Entered: 01/11/2011)
703 SEALED ORDER NO. 55 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
704 SEALED ORDER NO. 56 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
705 SEALED ORDER NO. 57 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
706 SEALED ORDER NO. 58 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
707 SEALED ORDER NO. 59 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 115 of 141

01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011

708 SEALED ORDER NO. 60 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
709 SEALED ORDER NO. 61 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
710 SEALED ORDER NO. 62 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
711 SEALED ORDER NO. 63 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
712 SEALED ORDER NO. 64 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
713 SEALED ORDER NO. 65 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
714 SEALED ORDER NO. 66 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
715 SEALED ORDER NO. 67 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
716 SEALED ORDER NO. 68 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
717 SEALED ORDER NO. 69 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
718 SEALED ORDER NO. 70 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
719 SEALED ORDER NO. 71 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
720 SEALED ORDER NO. 72 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
721 SEALED ORDER NO. 73 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
722 SEALED ORDER NO. 74 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
723 SEALED ORDER NO. 75 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
724 SEALED ORDER NO. 76 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 116 of 141

01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011

725 SEALED ORDER NO. 77 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
726 SEALED ORDER NO. 78 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
727 SEALED ORDER NO. 79 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
728 SEALED ORDER NO. 80 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
729 SEALED ORDER NO. 81 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
730 SEALED ORDER NO. 82 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
731 SEALED ORDER NO. 83 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
732 SEALED ORDER NO. 84 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
733 SEALED ORDER NO. 85 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
734 SEALED ORDER NO. 86 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
735 SEALED ORDER NO. 87 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
736 SEALED ORDER NO. 88 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
737 SEALED ORDER NO. 89 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
738 SEALED ORDER NO. 90 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
739 SEALED ORDER NO. 91 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
740 SEALED ORDER NO. 92 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
741 SEALED ORDER NO. 93 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 117 of 141

01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011

742 SEALED ORDER NO. 94 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
743 SEALED ORDER NO. 95 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
744 SEALED ORDER NO. 96 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
745 SEALED ORDER NO. 97 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
746 SEALED ORDER NO. 98 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
747 SEALED ORDER NO. 99 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
748 SEALED ORDER NO. 100 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
749 SEALED ORDER NO. 101 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
750 SEALED ORDER NO. 102 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
751 SEALED ORDER NO. 103 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
752 SEALED ORDER NO. 104 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
753 SEALED ORDER NO. 105 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
754 SEALED ORDER NO. 106 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
755 SEALED ORDER NO. 107 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
756 SEALED ORDER NO. 108 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
757 SEALED ORDER NO. 109 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
758 SEALED ORDER NO. 110 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 118 of 141

01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011

759 SEALED ORDER NO. 111 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
760 SEALED ORDER NO. 112 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
761 SEALED ORDER NO. 113 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
762 SEALED ORDER NO. 114 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
763 SEALED ORDER NO. 115 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
764 SEALED ORDER NO. 116 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
765 SEALED ORDER NO. 117 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
766 SEALED ORDER NO. 118 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
767 SEALED ORDER NO. 119 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
768 SEALED ORDER NO. 120 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
769 SEALED ORDER NO. 121 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
770 SEALED ORDER NO. 122 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
771 SEALED ORDER NO. 123 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
772 SEALED ORDER NO. 124 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
773 SEALED ORDER NO. 125 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
774 SEALED ORDER NO. 126 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
775 SEALED ORDER NO. 127 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 119 of 141

01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011

776 SEALED ORDER NO. 128 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
777 SEALED ORDER NO. 129 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
778 SEALED ORDER NO. 130 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
779 SEALED ORDER NO. 131 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
780 SEALED ORDER NO. 132 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
781 SEALED ORDER NO. 133 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
782 SEALED ORDER NO. 134 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
783 SEALED ORDER NO. 135 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
784 SEALED ORDER NO. 136 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
785 SEALED ORDER NO. 137 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
786 SEALED ORDER NO. 138 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
787 SEALED ORDER NO. 139 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
788 SEALED ORDER NO. 140 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
789 SEALED ORDER NO. 141 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
790 SEALED ORDER NO. 142 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
791 SEALED ORDER NO. 143 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
792 SEALED ORDER NO. 144 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 120 of 141

01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011

793 SEALED ORDER NO. 145 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
794 SEALED ORDER NO. 146 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
795 SEALED ORDER NO. 147 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
796 SEALED ORDER NO. 148 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
797 SEALED ORDER NO. 149 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
798 SEALED ORDER NO. 150 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
799 SEALED ORDER NO. 151 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
800 SEALED ORDER NO. 152 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
801 SEALED ORDER NO. 153 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
802 SEALED ORDER NO. 154 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
803 SEALED ORDER NO. 155 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
804 SEALED ORDER NO. 156 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) Modified on 1/11/2011 (zclv, ). (Entered: 01/11/2011)
805 SEALED ORDER NO. 157 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
806 SEALED ORDER NO. 158 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
807 SEALED ORDER NO. 159 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
808 SEALED ORDER NO. 160 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
809 SEALED ORDER NO. 161 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 121 of 141

01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011

810 SEALED ORDER NO. 162 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
811 SEALED ORDER NO. 163 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
812 SEALED ORDER NO. 164 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
813 SEALED ORDER NO. 165 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
814 SEALED ORDER NO. 166 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
815 SEALED ORDER NO. 167 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
816 SEALED ORDER NO. 168 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
817 SEALED ORDER NO. 169 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
818 SEALED ORDER NO. 170 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
819 SEALED ORDER NO. 171 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
820 SEALED ORDER NO. 172 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
821 SEALED ORDER NO. 173 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
822 SEALED ORDER NO. 174 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
823 SEALED ORDER NO. 175 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
824 SEALED ORDER NO. 176 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
825 SEALED ORDER NO. 177 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
826 SEALED ORDER NO. 178 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 122 of 141

01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011

827 SEALED ORDER NO. 179 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
828 SEALED ORDER NO. 180 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
829 SEALED ORDER NO. 181 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
830 SEALED ORDER NO. 182 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
831 SEALED ORDER NO. 183 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
832 SEALED ORDER NO. 184 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
833 SEALED ORDER NO. 185 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
834 SEALED ORDER NO. 186 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
835 SEALED ORDER NO. 187 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
836 SEALED ORDER NO. 188 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
837 SEALED ORDER NO. 189 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
838 SEALED ORDER NO. 190 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
839 SEALED ORDER NO. 191 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
840 SEALED ORDER NO. 192 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
841 SEALED ORDER NO. 193 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
842 SEALED ORDER NO. 194 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
843 SEALED ORDER NO. 195 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 123 of 141

01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011

844 SEALED ORDER NO. 196 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
845 SEALED ORDER NO. 197 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
846 SEALED ORDER NO. 198 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
847 SEALED ORDER NO. 199 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
848 SEALED ORDER NO. 200 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
849 SEALED ORDER NO. 53 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
850 SEALED ORDER NO 201 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
851 SEALED ORDER NO. 202 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
852 SEALED ORDER NO. 203 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
853 SEALED ORDER NO. 204 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
854 SEALED ORDER NO. 205 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
855 SEALED ORDER NO. 206 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
856 SEALED ORDER NO. 207 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
857 SEALED ORDER NO. 208 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
858 SEALED ORDER NO. 209 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
859 SEALED ORDER NO. 210 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
860 SEALED ORDER NO. 211 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 124 of 141

01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011

968 SEALED ORDER NO. 212. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(zclv, ) (zclv, ). Modified on 1/14/2011 (zclv, ). (Entered: 01/11/2011)
861 SEALED ORDER NO. 213 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
862 SEALED ORDER NO. 214 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
863 SEALED ORDER NO. 215 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
864 SEALED ORDER NO. 216 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
865 SEALED ORDER NO. 217 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
866 SEALED ORDER NO. 218 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
867 SEALED ORDER NO. 219 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
868 SEALED ORDER NO. 220 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
869 SEALED ORDER NO. 221 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
870 SEALED ORDER NO. 222 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
871 SEALED ORDER NO. 223 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
872 SEALED ORDER NO. 224 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
873 SEALED ORDER NO. 225 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
874 SEALED ORDER NO. 226 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
875 SEALED ORDER NO. 227 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
876 SEALED ORDER NO. 228 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 125 of 141

01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011

877 SEALED ORDER NO. 229 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
878 SEALED ORDER NO. 230 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
879 SEALED ORDER NO. 231 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
880 SEALED ORDER NO. 232 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
881 SEALED ORDER NO. 233 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
882 SEALED ORDER NO. 234 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
883 SEALED ORDER NO. 235 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
884 SEALED ORDER NO. 236 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
885 SEALED ORDER NO. 237 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
886 SEALED ORDER NO. 238 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
887 SEALED ORDER NO. 239 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
888 SEALED ORDER NO. 240 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
889 SEALED ORDER NO. 241 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
890 SEALED ORDER NO. 242 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
891 SEALED ORDER NO. 243 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
892 SEALED ORDER NO. 244 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
893 SEALED ORDER NO. 245 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 126 of 141

01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011

894 SEALED ORDER NO. 246 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
895 SEALED ORDER NO. 247 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
896 SEALED ORDER NO. 248 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
897 SEALED ORDER NO. 249 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
898 SEALED ORDER NO. 250 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
899 SEALED ORDER NO. 251 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
900 SEALED ORDER NO. 252 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
901 SEALED ORDER NO. 253 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
902 SEALED ORDER NO. 254 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
903 SEALED ORDER NO. 255 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
904 SEALED ORDER NO. 256 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
905 SEALED ORDER NO. 257 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
906 SEALED ORDER NO. 258 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
907 SEALED ORDER NO. 259 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
908 SEALED ORDER NO. 260 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
909 SEALED ORDER NO. 261 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
910 SEALED ORDER NO. 262 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 127 of 141

01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011

911 SEALED ORDER NO. 263 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
912 SEALED ORDER NO. 264 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
913 SEALED ORDER NO. 265 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
914 SEALED ORDER NO. 266 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
915 SEALED ORDER NO. 267 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
916 SEALED ORDER NO. 268 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
917 SEALED ORDER NO. 269 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
918 SEALED ORDER NO. 270 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
919 SEALED ORDER NO. 271 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
920 SEALED ORDER NO. 272 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
921 SEALED ORDER NO. 273 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
922 SEALED ORDER NO. 274 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
923 SEALED ORDER NO. 275 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
924 SEALED ORDER NO. 276 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
925 SEALED ORDER NO. 277 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
926 SEALED ORDER NO. 278 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
927 SEALED ORDER NO. 279 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 128 of 141

01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011

928 SEALED ORDER NO. 280 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
929 SEALED ORDER NO. 281 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
930 SEALED ORDER NO. 282 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
931 SEALED ORDER NO. 283 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
932 SEALED ORDER NO. 284 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
933 SEALED ORDER NO. 285 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
934 SEALED ORDER NO. 286 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
935 SEALED ORDER NO. 287 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
936 SEALED ORDER NO. 288 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
937 SEALED ORDER NO. 289 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
938 SEALED ORDER NO. 290 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
939 SEALED ORDER NO. 291 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
940 SEALED ORDER NO. 292 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
941 SEALED ORDER NO. 293 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
942 SEALED ORDER NO. 294 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
943 SEALED ORDER NO. 295 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
944 SEALED ORDER NO. 296 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 129 of 141

01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011

945 SEALED ORDER NO. 297 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
946 SEALED ORDER NO. 298 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
947 SEALED ORDER NO. 299 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
948 SEALED ORDER NO. 300 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
949 SEALED ORDER NO. 301 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
950 SEALED ORDER NO. 302 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
951 SEALED ORDER NO. 303 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
952 SEALED ORDER NO. 304 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
953 SEALED ORDER NO. 305 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
954 SEALED ORDER NO. 306 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
955 SEALED ORDER NO. 307 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
956 SEALED ORDER NO. 308 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
957 SEALED ORDER NO. 309 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
958 SEALED ORDER NO. 310 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
959 SEALED ORDER NO. 311 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
960 SEALED ORDER NO. 312 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
961 SEALED ORDER NO. 313 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 130 of 141

01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 02/23/2011 02/24/2011 03/01/2011 03/07/2011 03/07/2011
03/08/2011
03/08/2011 03/22/2011

962 SEALED ORDER NO. 314 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
963 SEALED ORDER NO. 315 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
964 SEALED ORDER NO. 316 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
965 SEALED ORDER NO. 317 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
966 SEALED ORDER NO. 318 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
967 SEALED ORDER NO. 319 (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/7/11.(zclv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
969 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Attorney Leah Brownlee Taylor terminated. (Brownlee Taylor, Leah) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
970 MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 970 consent motion for attorneys' fees by Peter J. Newsham. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 24, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
971 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 971 consent motion for attorney fees by Charles H. Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 7, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
972 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report of Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Verheyden−Hilliard, Mara) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting the plaintiffs' and federal defendants' 972 joint request for additional time to engage in settlement negotiations. If this case settles in whole or in part before May 10, 2011, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than May 10, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 8, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 5/10/2011 (clv, ) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
973 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Consent Motion to Permit Mandatory Report to be Filed by No Later than April 5, 2011 by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/22/2011)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 131 of 141

03/23/2011
03/23/2011 03/25/2011
04/05/2011 05/10/2011 05/12/2011
05/13/2011 05/13/2011 05/16/2011 07/11/2011 07/21/2011
07/21/2011 08/04/2011

MINUTE ORDER granting 973 consent motion of plaintiffs and the District to for extension of time to file mandatory report. To allow the process of communication between the parties to proceed to completion, the first report required under Section 6 of 640 the Court's Order of Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement shall be filed by no later than April 5, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 23, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff'sMandatory report due by 4/5/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
974 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. Attorney Radhika M.S. Miller terminated. (Miller, Radhika) (Entered: 03/25/2011)
975 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 640 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Six−Month Mandatory Report filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Class Counsel Response)(Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
976 STATUS REPORT Joint Report of Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RICHARD MURPHY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting the plaintiffs' and federal defendants' 976 joint request for additional time to engage in settlement negotiations. If this case settles in whole or in part before July 11, 2011, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than July 11, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 12, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/12/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 7/11/2011 (clv, ) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
977 Consent MOTION for Order for approval of payment of interim attorney fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 977 consent motion for attorney fees by Charles H. Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 12, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
978 STATUS REPORT Joint Report of Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting the plaintiffs' and federal defendants' 978 joint request for additional time to engage in settlement negotiations. If this case settles in whole or in part before September 12, 2011, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than September 12, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 21, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Stipulation of settlement or Status Report due by 9/12/2011 (clv, ) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
979 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 09/22/10; Page Numbers: 1−30. Date of Issuance:8/4/11. Court Reporter/Transcriber Catalina Kerr, Telephone number 202−354−3258, Court Reporter Email Address : catykerr@msn.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 132 of 141

08/24/2011 09/01/2011 09/12/2011 09/13/2011
09/14/2011 09/22/2011 09/23/2011
11/15/2011 11/29/2011 11/29/2011 12/02/2011 12/08/2011 12/12/2011 12/12/2011

days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 8/25/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/4/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/2/2011.(Kerr, Catalina) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
980 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 980 consent motion for attorney fees by Charles H. Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 1, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
981 STATUS REPORT Joint Report of Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting the plaintiffs' and federal defendants' 981 joint request for additional time to engage in settlement negotiations. If this case settles in whole or in part before December 12, 2011, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than December 12, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 13, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 12/12/2011 (clv, ) (Entered: 09/14/2011)
982 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 640 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Second Mandatory Report Regarding Barham Class Settlement filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Pressley, Monique) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
983 NOTICE of Submission of Monitoring Report and Comments by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund to the District Defendants' Second Six Month Report on the Implementation of Required Changes to Policies and Practices Under the Barham Class Action Settlement Agreement by MARY CANALES, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 982 Response to Order of the Court, 640 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Monitoring Report and Comments by Partnership for Civil Justice Fund to the District Defendants' Second Six Month Report on the Implementation of Required Changes to Policies and Practices Under the Barham Class Action Settlement Agreement)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
984 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 984 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees by Charles H. Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 29, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
985 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
986 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to RAYMING CHANG, YOUNG CHOI, LEANNE LEE, CHRISTOPHER ZARCONI. Attorney Ivan Jay Snyder terminated. (Snyder, Ivan) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 985 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 8, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
987 STATUS REPORT , Joint by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RICHARD MURPHY, KENNETH SALAZAR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
MINUTE ORDER. In their status report of December 12, 2011, the parties state that they have reached an impasse in settlement negotiations. Accordingly, the parties shall file a joint recommendation for further proceedings in this action by no later than

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 133 of 141

12/13/2011 01/12/2012 01/13/2012
01/13/2012 03/13/2012 03/15/2012
03/15/2012 03/22/2012 03/22/2012
03/23/2012
03/23/2012
03/23/2012 05/04/2012 05/08/2012

January 12, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 12, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 1/12/2012 (clv, ) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
988 STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Report of Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants) by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 01/12/2012)
MINUTE ORDER. In their status report of January 12, 2012, the plaintiffs and federal defendants have informed the Court that they have returned to settlement negotiations and jointly request a 60 day extension of time to select and retain a mediator and to continue settlement discussions. The parties' request is GRANTED. The parties are directed to notify the Court when they have have selected and retained a mediator. Should the parties be unable to select and retain a mediator, the parties are directed to notify the Court so that the Court may assist the parties in retaining a mediator for this case. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than March 13, 2012. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 13, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 3/13/2012 (clv, ) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
989 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report of Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants by JEFFREY BARHAM. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 989 the parties' joint request for additional time to engage in mediation. If this case settles in whole or in part before June 15, 2012, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than June 15, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 15, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 6/15/2012 (clv, ) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
990 NOTICE (Sixth Month Report to the Court) by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
991 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE Monitoring Report and Comments by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund to the District Defendants' Third Six Month Report on the Implementation of Required Changes to Policies and Practices Under the Barham Class Action Settlement Agreement by JEFFREY BARHAM (Messineo, Carl) Modified on 3/23/2012 (znmw, ). (Entered: 03/22/2012)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 991 Notice (Other); emailed to cm@JusticeOnline.org, cc'd 42 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Incorrect header/caption/case number, 2. Invalid attorney signature, 3. Please refile document, 4. Entered in error; Must be accompanied by a Notice of Filing with case caption and attorney signature (znmw, ) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
992 NOTICE of Submission of Plaintiffs' Third Monitoring Report by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 990 Notice (Other), 640 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs Third Monitoring Report)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
993 NOTICE Regarding the "Monitoring Report and Comments" Filed by the Barham Plaintiffs and the Parnership for Civil Justice Fund by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA re 992 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
994 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by PETER NEWSHAM (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deso, Robert) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 994 consent motion for attorney fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 8, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 134 of 141

05/16/2012 995 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

05/17/2012

MINUTE ORDER granting 995 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 17, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

06/15/2012

996 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report of Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, ADRIAN M. FENTY, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, MICHAEL LEHACH, RICHARD MURPHY, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 06/15/2012)

06/18/2012

MINUTE ORDER granting 996 the parties' joint request for additional time to engage in mediation. If this case settles in whole or in part before September 15, 2012, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than September 15, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 18, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

06/18/2012

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 9/15/2012 (clv, ) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

09/17/2012 997 STATUS REPORT , Joint by GALE A. NORTON, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/17/2012)

09/18/2012

MINUTE ORDER granting 997 the parties' joint request for additional time to engage in mediation. If this case settles in whole or in part before December 14, 2012, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than December 14, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 18, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/18/2012)

09/19/2012

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 12/14/2012 (clv, ) (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/21/2012 998 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Six Month Report No Later Than September 26, 2012 by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 09/21/2012)

09/25/2012

MINUTE ORDER granting 998 District of Columbia's consent motion for extension of time to file its six month report as required by the Court's order of September 22, 2010. The District shall file its six month report by no later than Wednesday, September 26, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 25, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/25/2012)

09/25/2012

Set/Reset Deadlines: 6 month report due by 9/22/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 09/25/2012)

09/25/2012 999 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 09/25/2012)

09/26/2012 1000 NOTICE of Filing of Six Month Report by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Class Counsel Comments)(Frost, Shana) (Entered: 09/26/2012)

09/27/2012

MINUTE ORDER granting 999 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 26, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/27/2012)

12/14/2012 1001 STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Report of Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants) by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 12/14/2012)

12/17/2012

MINUTE ORDER granting 1001 the parties' joint request for additional time to engage in mediation. If this case settles in whole or in part before March 14, 2013, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than March 14, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 17, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/17/2012)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 135 of 141

12/17/2012

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 3/14/2013 (clv, ) (Entered: 12/17/2012)

01/22/2013 1002 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 01/22/2013)

01/25/2013 1003 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2013)

01/25/2013

MINUTE ORDER granting 1002 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 1003 Consent Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 25, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/25/2013)

02/11/2013 1004 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Chief of Police, MPD) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 02/11/2013)

02/12/2013

MINUTE ORDER granting 1004 Consent Motion for Attorneys Fees by Charles Ramsey. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 12, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/12/2013)

03/12/2013 1005 STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Report of Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants) by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/14/2013

MINUTE ORDER granting 1005 the parties' joint request for additional time to engage in mediation. If this case settles in whole or in part before July 15, 2013, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than July 15, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 14, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/14/2013)

03/14/2013

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 7/15/2013. (mac) (Entered: 03/14/2013)

03/22/2013 1006 NOTICE of Filing of Six−Month Report by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

03/22/2013

1007

NOTICE Monitoring Report and Comments by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund to the District Defendants' Fifth Six Month Report on the Implementation of Required Changes to Policies and Practices Under the Barham Class Action Settlement Agreement by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN re 1006 Notice (Other) (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

07/15/2013

1008

STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report of Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants by WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

07/16/2013

MINUTE ORDER granting 1008 the parties' joint request for additional time to engage in mediation. If this case settles in whole or in part before November 15, 2013, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than November 15, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 16, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/16/2013)

07/16/2013

Set/Reset Deadlines: Stipulation or Status Report due by 11/15/2013 (clv, ) (Entered: 07/16/2013)

08/06/2013 1009 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Attachment)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 08/06/2013)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 136 of 141

08/07/2013 1010 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Attachment)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 08/07/2013)

08/08/2013

MINUTE ORDER granting 1009 and 1010 Charles Ramsey's consent motions for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 8, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

09/23/2013 1011 STATUS REPORT (Six−Month Report Regarding Compliance with Settlement) by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Frost, Shana) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

11/15/2013 1012 STATUS REPORT , Joint by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RICHARD MURPHY, GALE A. NORTON, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 11/15/2013)

11/20/2013

MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, hereby schedules a status conference for plaintiffs and federal defendants on December 2, 2013 at 11:45 AM in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 20, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/20/2013)

11/21/2013

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 12/2/2013 at 11:45 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 11/21/2013)

12/02/2013

MINUTE ORDER. For the reasons set forth during the status hearing on December 2, 2013, the plaintiffs and federal defendants shall appear for a status conference on February 27, 2014 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 24A. If this case settles in whole or in part before February 21, 2014, the plaintifs and federal defendants shall notify the court by filing a stipulation. If this case does not settle by February 21, 2014, the plaintiffs and federal defendants shall file a joint status report, including recommendations for further proceedings, by that same date. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 2, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/02/2013)

12/02/2013

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Status Conference held on 12/2/2013. Stipulation or Joint Status Report due by 2/21/2014, Status Conference set for 2/27/2013 12:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter SUSAN TYNER.) (mac) (Entered: 12/02/2013)

02/20/2014

MINUTE ORDER: Due to the Court's Calendar, the status conference previously scheduled for February 27, 2014 at 12:00PM will now take place on February 27, 2014 at 12:30 PM. PLEASE NOTE THE TIME CHANGE. The Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 02/20/14. (mac) (Entered: 02/20/2014)

02/20/2014 1013 Joint MOTION to Continue Status Hearing and Joint Status Report by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RICHARD MURPHY, GALE A. NORTON, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 02/20/2014)

02/20/2014

NOTICE OF ERROR re 1013 Motion to Continue; emailed to Marina.Braswell@usdoj.gov, cc'd 43 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Two−part docket entry, 2. Please refile document, 3. same document using the event (Entered: 02/20/2014)

02/20/2014 1014 STATUS REPORT , Joint, by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RICHARD MURPHY, GALE A. NORTON, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 02/20/2014)

02/25/2014

MINUTE ORDER granting 1013 Joint Motion to Continue the status hearing in light of plaintiffs' and federal defendants' joint request that the Court refer this case to its mediation program. It is hereby ORDERED that the status hearing scheduled for February 27, 2014 is vacated and this case is referred to the District Court's mediation program. The Court requests that a mediator with expertise in civil rights law be appointed in this case. It is FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and the parties, including persons with settlement authority, attend mediation. It is FURTHER ORDERED that mediation be concluded by May 1, 2014. If this case settles in whole or part before May 1, 2014, counsel shall advise the Court of the settlement by filing a stipulation. If the mediation is unsuccessful, the parties shall appear before the Court

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 137 of 141

for a status hearing on May 7, 2014 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 24A. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 25, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/25/2014)

05/07/2014

MINUTE ORDER. The plaintiffs and federal defendants have contacted chambers by email to request that mediation be extended for 30 days. Accordingly, mediation is hereby extended through May 30, 2014. If this case settles in whole or in part, the parties shall advise the Court by filing a stipulation. If this case does not settle, the parties shall file a joint status report, including recommendations for further proceedings, by no later than June 11, 2014. The status hearing previously scheduled for May 7, 2014 is hereby continued until June 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 7, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/07/2014)

05/07/2014

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 6/11/2014. Status Conference set for 6/18/2014 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 05/07/2014)

05/14/2014 1015 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Attachment 1)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 05/14/2014)

05/23/2014

MINUTE ORDER granting 1015 Charles Ramsey's consent motions for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 23, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/23/2014)

06/11/2014 1016 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hudak, Brian) (Entered: 06/11/2014)

06/12/2014

MINUTE ORDER. The plaintiffs and federal defendants have filed a 1016 joint status report requesting additional time to pursue settlement negotiations. Accordingly, mediation is hereby extended through July 18, 2014. If this case settles in whole or in part, the parties shall advise the Court by filing a stipulation. If this case does not settle, the parties shall file a joint status report, including recommendations for further proceedings, by no later than July 21, 2014. The status hearing previously scheduled for June 18, 2014 is hereby continued until July 30, 2014 at 2:45 PM in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 12, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/12/2014)

06/12/2014

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Mediation to conclude by 7/18/2014. Stipulation or Joint Status Report due by 7/21/2014. Status Conference set for 7/30/2014 02:45 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 06/12/2014)

07/21/2014

MINUTE ORDER. The plaintiffs and federal defendants have contacted chambers by phone to request that mediation be extended. Accordingly, mediation is hereby extended through September 12, 2014. If this case settles in whole or in part, the parties shall advise the Court by filing a stipulation. If this case does not settle, the parties shall file a joint status report, including recommendations for further proceedings, by no later than September 15, 2014. The status hearing previously scheduled for July 30, 2014 is hereby continued until September 30, 2014 at 12:30 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 21, 2014. (lcegs7) (Entered: 07/21/2014)

07/21/2014

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Mediation to conclude by 9/12/2014. Status Report due by 9/15/2014. Status Conference set for 9/30/2014 at 12:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 07/21/2014)

08/18/2014 1017 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Consent Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

08/22/2014

MINUTE ORDER granting 1017 Charles Ramsey's consent motion for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 22, 2014. (lcegs7) (Entered: 08/22/2014)

09/12/2014 1018 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Mediation by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 138 of 141

PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Verheyden−Hilliard, Mara) (Entered: 09/12/2014)

09/12/2014

MINUTE ORDER granting 1018 joint motion to extend mediation. Mediation is extended through September 30, 2014. If this case settles in whole or in part, the parties shall advise the Court by filing a stipulation. If this case does not settle, the parties shall file a joint status report, including recommendations for further proceedings, by no later than October 1, 2014. The status hearing previously scheduled for September 30, 2014 is hereby continued until October 16, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 12, 2014. (lcegs7) (Entered: 09/12/2014)

09/15/2014

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Stipulation or Joint Status Report due by 10/1/2014 Status Conference set for 10/16/2014 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 09/15/2014)

09/26/2014 1019 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Document Under Seal by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RICHARD MURPHY, GALE A. NORTON, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/26/2014)

09/26/2014

1020

SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RICHARD MURPHY, GALE A. NORTON, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Document to be filed Under Seal)(Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 09/26/2014)

09/29/2014 1021 ORDER granting 1019 Joint Motion For Leave To File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 09/26/14. (mac) Modified on 9/29/2014 (zmac, ). (Entered: 09/29/2014)

09/29/2014 1022 SEALED ORDER That This Order Shall Be Filed Under Seal Pending Further Order OF The Court. This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 09/26/14.(zmac) (Entered: 09/29/2014)

09/29/2014 1023 SEALED NOTICE filed by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RICHARD MURPHY, GALE A. NORTON, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(zjf, ) (Entered: 09/29/2014)

10/01/2014

1024

Joint MOTION to Vacate Status Hearing and Joint Status Report by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Verheyden−Hilliard, Mara) (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/01/2014

MINUTE ORDER granting 1024 parties' motion to vacate the joint status report deadline and status hearing. If this case settles in whole or in part, the parties shall advise the Court by filing a stipulation. If this case does not settle, the parties shall file a joint status report, including recommendations for further proceedings, by no later than October 31, 2014. It is FURTHER ORDERED the status hearing previously scheduled for October 16, 2014 is hereby continued until November 13, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 1, 2014. (lcegs7) (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/10/2014 1025 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/10/2014

MINUTE ORDER granting 1025 Charles Ramsey's consent motion for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 10, 2014. (lcegs7) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/31/2014 1026 STATUS REPORT Joint, by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RICHARD MURPHY, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 10/31/2014)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 139 of 141

11/03/2014

MINUTE ORDER adopting the recommendations in 1026 parties' joint status report. If this case settles in whole or in part, the parties shall advise the Court by filing a stipulation. If this case does not settle, the parties shall file a joint status report, including recommendations for further proceedings, by no later than December 5, 2014. It is FURTHER ORDERED the status hearing previously scheduled for November 13, 2014 is hereby continued until December 16, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 3, 2014. (lcegs7) (Entered: 11/03/2014)

11/03/2014

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Stipulation or Joint Status Report due by 12/5/2014. Status Conference set for 12/16/2014 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 11/03/2014)

12/08/2014

1027

STATUS REPORT Joint by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 12/08/2014)

12/08/2014

MINUTE ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc, the parties' motion for leave to file 1027 joint status report one day out of time and adopting the recommendations in the joint status report. If this case settles in whole or in part, the parties shall advise the Court by filing a stipulation. If this case does not settle, the parties shall file a joint status report, including recommendations for further proceedings, by no later than January 15, 2015. It is FURTHER ORDERED the status hearing previously scheduled for December 16, 2014 is hereby continued until January 28, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 24A. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 8, 2014. (lcegs7) (Entered: 12/08/2014)

12/09/2014

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Stipulation or Joint Status Report due by 1/15/2015. Status Conference set for 1/28/2015 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

12/22/2014 1028 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/23/2014

MINUTE ORDER granting 1028 Charles Ramsey's consent motion for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 23, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/23/2014)

01/15/2015 1029 STATUS REPORT , Joint by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 01/15/2015)

01/26/2015

MINUTE ORDER. The Court has reviewed 1029 the joint status report filed by the parties. There is currently a status hearing scheduled in this case on January 28, 2015. Because the Court would like additional information about the settlement negotiations, the Court thinks it is prudent to keep the status hearing date scheduled. Accordingly, the parties' request that the status hearing be rescheduled is DENIED. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/26/2015)

01/28/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Status Conference held on 1/28/2015. Status Conference will resume on 2/24/2014 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (Court Reporter SCOTT WALLACE.) (mac) (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/31/2015 1030 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuohey, Mark) (Entered: 01/31/2015)

02/02/2015

MINUTE ORDER granting 1030 Charles Ramsey's consent motion for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 2, 2015. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/02/2015)

02/23/2015 1031 STATUS REPORT , Joint by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RICHARD MURPHY, GALE A. NORTON, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 140 of 141

02/24/2015

MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, cancels the status hearing scheduled for today, February 24, 2015. The parties are directed to file a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than March 24, 2015. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 24, 2015. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/24/2015)

03/24/2015 1032 STATUS REPORT , Joint by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RICHARD MURPHY, GALE A. NORTON, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Braswell, Marina) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

04/08/2015 1033 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees by CHARLES H. RAMSEY(in his individual and personal capacity only) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Curry, Lauren) (Entered: 04/08/2015)

04/29/2015

MINUTE ORDER granting 1033 Charles Ramsey's consent motion for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 29, 2015. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/29/2015)

05/10/2015

1034

Joint MOTION for Order , Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Settlement, Notice to Class, and Notice of Fairness Hearing by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Ex 1 − Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit Ex 2 − Postcard Notice, # 4 Exhibit Ex 3 − Detailed Full Notice, # 5 Exhibit Ex 4 − Text of Newspaper Notice, # 6 Exhibit Ex 5 − Proof of Claim form, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 05/10/2015)

05/11/2015 1035 ORDER granting 1034 motion for preliminary approval. The parties are directed to read this Order in its entirety. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 11, 2015. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/11/2015)

05/12/2015

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Parties Responses due by 6/18/2015. Fairness Hearing set for 6/22/2015 10:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

06/18/2015

1036

NOTICE of Filing of Declaration of Class Administrator by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 06/18/2015)

06/18/2015

1037

NOTICE that No Objections Have Been Received to the Proposed Class Settlement with Federal Defendants by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 06/18/2015)

06/22/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Fairness Hearing held on 6/22/2015. (Court Reporter SCOTT WALLACE.) (mac) (Entered: 06/25/2015)

06/24/2015

1038

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 6−22−15; Page Numbers: (1−24). Date of Issuance:6−23−15. Court Reporter/Transcriber Scott Wallace, Telephone number 202−354−3196, Court Reporter Email Address : scott_l_wallace@dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at

Case: 1:02-cv-2283 As of: 05/22/2017 01:24 PM EDT 141 of 141

www.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 7/15/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/25/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/22/2015.(Wallace, Scott) (Entered: 06/24/2015)

07/01/2015

1039

Joint MOTION for Order , for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/01/2015)

07/08/2015 1040 ORDER granting 1039 MOTION for Order, for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 07/07/15. (mac) (Entered: 07/08/2015)

07/28/2015

1041

STIPULATION of Dismissal as to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 07/28/2015)

07/29/2015 1042 STIPULATION of Dismissal As To Defendant Federal Bureau Of Investigation (mac) (Entered: 07/29/2015)

08/07/2015

1043

NOTICE of Filing of Supplemental Declaration of Class Administrator by MARY CANALES, WILLIAM DURHAM, NOAH FALK, JORGE GARCIA−SPITZ, MARK ALLEN JACKSON, CASEY LEGLER, CHARLCIE LEGLER, SALLY A. NORTON, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, JOSEPH PHELAN, NICOLE PRICHARD, MORGAN RESS, MACDONALD SCOTT, JERI WOHLBERG, LESLEY WOOD, SAMANTHA YOUNG, SPEPHEN ZIMMERMAN (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 08/07/2015)