4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 1 of 19 - Page ID # 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT KEARNEY; BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA; DAVID L. BRANDT; CHERYL BRESSINGTON; CHRISTY HORN; and GAIL ZELLER,
Defendants. ___________________________________

) ) ) ) CASE NO. ) ) ) ) ) ) )
)
)
)

COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL The United States of America (“United States”) alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action is brought by the United States to enforce Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (“Fair Housing Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631. It is brought on behalf of Brittany Hamilton, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(o), as well as 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1345, 42 U.S.C. § 3612(o) and 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a). 3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the United States’ claims occurred there.

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 2 of 19 - Page ID # 2
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 4. University Heights is located at 1701 W. 35th Street, Kearney, Nebraska 68849, which is about one mile northwest of the campus of the University of Nebraska at Kearney (“UNK”). University Heights offers “apartment-style housing” for single parents, married students and students twenty-one years of age or older, and consists of 102 units of one-bedroom and efficiency apartments. 5. Students sign leases for University Heights for at least one semester, which lasts approximately three to four months, but may sign leases that last longer periods of time. 6. University Heights apartments are unfurnished except for a stove and refrigerator, and students are responsible for providing their own furniture. Students and their families renting University Heights apartments are responsible for cleaning and maintaining their apartments. 7. UNK refers to students living at University Heights as “lessees” and encourages students living in university housing to “make your new residence feel like home.” UNK assigns each household residing at University Heights an individual mailbox, and UNK instructs students to have their mail addressed as follows: “University Heights, 1701 W. 35th St., Apt. # [corresponding to room number].” 8. University Heights is a dwelling within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b).
PARTIES 9. Defendant University of Nebraska at Kearney is a four-year university in the University of Nebraska system, where students can participate in over 170 academic programs. UNK, through its Office of Residential and Greek Life, manages University Heights.
2

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 3 of 19 - Page ID # 3
10. Defendant Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (“the Board”) has authority over general supervision over all elements of the University of Nebraska and for general operating policies of the University of Nebraska. The Board owns University Heights.
11. Defendant David L. Brandt is and at all relevant times has been the Assistant Director of Academic Success of the Learning Strategies Office at UNK. At all relevant times, the Learning Strategies Office includes the Disabilities Services Office (DSO).
12. Defendant Cheryl Bressington is and at all relevant times has been UNK’s Affirmative Action/EEO/ADA/Title IX Coordinator and Human Resources Director.
13. Defendant Christy Horn, Ph.D, is and at relevant times has been the designated ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer at UNK. As the ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer, Defendant Horn decides any appeals from the decisions related to reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities at UNK.
14. Defendant Gail Zeller, Ph.D, is and at all relevant times has been UNK’s Interim Director of Academic Success and Interim Director of Residential and Greek Life. Defendant Zeller is Defendant Brandt’s supervisor in the Disabilities Services Office. As the Interim Director of Residential and Greek Life, she is also responsible for supervising and monitoring policies for Greek and residential life and acts as the final appeal “for all contractual and disciplinary processes” of the Office of Residential and Greek Life.
15. At all relevant times, Ms. Hamilton is and has been disabled as defined by the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h). She has, and continues to have, depression and anxiety. Her anxiety substantially impairs her ability to sleep and causes anxiety attacks, which substantially impair her ability to breathe.
16. Defendants Brandt, Horn, Bressington, and Zeller (“Individual Defendants”) were
3

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 4 of 19 - Page ID # 4
responsible for denying Ms. Hamilton’s reasonable accommodation requests to live with an emotional assistance animal at University Heights.
17. Individual Defendants are and at all relevant times have been employees and agents of UNK and the Board.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I. UNK’s Pet Policy
18. According to UNK’s written policies, students living in university housing are not permitted to have pets other than fish. Two exceptions to this no-pets policy exist. First, “students with a disability who require the use of a service animal” may live with a service animal, subject to Defendants’ approval of a reasonable accommodation request. Second, “Hall Directors,” who are graduate students who serve as staff members and live in University housing, may reside with cats or small dogs as pets, subject to approval by the Residential and Greek Life leadership team.
19. UNK does not maintain a written policy specifically addressing accommodations for students with disabilities to live with service animals under the Fair Housing Act. However, UNK’s ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] Policy for Service Animals states that “[t]herapy animals are not considered service animals.”
20. Defendants have repeatedly stated that only students with dogs trained and certified as service animals under the ADA will be granted a reasonable accommodation to live with their dog at university housing. Defendants have repeatedly indicated that students with disabilities who seek to live with emotional assistance animals in university housing do not need to be accommodated and have referred to emotional assistance animals as “pets.”
4

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 5 of 19 - Page ID # 5
II. Defendants’ Policies and Procedures Regarding Reasonable Accommodations 21. Several different offices and employees at UNK have the authority to decide
reasonable accommodation requests. First, the Disability Services Office has the authority to grant or deny students’ reasonable accommodation requests. Second, UNK’s ADA Coordinator, who is currently Defendant Bressington, is authorized to review reasonable accommodation requests from any individual, including students, seeking an accommodation at UNK. She is responsible for forwarding reasonable accommodation requests to “appropriate staff member(s) for review.” Defendant Bressington and the staff to whom she forwards the request may jointly decide whether to grant or deny a student’s reasonable accommodation request.
22. The Disability Services Office maintains “Psychological Documentation Guidelines” (hereinafter, “PDG”), which outlines UNK’s requirements to “validate a psychological impairment, its impact on the individuals [sic] educational performance and the need for accommodations.”
23. Under the PDG, “[t]he provision of all reasonable accommodations and services is based upon the assessment of the current impact of the disability on academic functioning.”
24. The PDG applies to students seeking an accommodation for “a psychological impairment” and impose numerous onerous documentation requirements on such students.
25. Specifically, the PDG requires a professional to provide an evaluation of a student with a psychological or emotional disability that includes numerous requirements, including but not limited to: (1) documentation of a diagnosis based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) Criteria; this diagnosis must describe “the nature, frequency, and severity of the symptoms upon which the diagnosis is predicated;” (2) the evaluation must be provided by a professional qualified to make the DSM-IV diagnosis, and the
5

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 6 of 19 - Page ID # 6
evaluator must provide his or her “professional credentials,” including “information about licensure and/or specialization;” (3) information regarding the “student’s treatment and prescribed medications;” (4) “the date of the student’s last visit with this provider [and] the schedule of the student’s regular meeting with the provider;” (5) “[a] list of prescribed medications, dosages, and schedules [of medications];” (6) a list of any other providers who are providing treatment; (7) a clinical summary which indicates the substantial life activities impaired by the disability, “describes the extent to which these limitations would impact the academic or living environment in a postsecondary setting,” and “provides clear evidence that the student’s symptoms are present in two or more settings;” and (8) an explanation of how the student’s functional limitations affect “the activities that are required in an academic environment.”
26. Other than requiring documentation of a physical disability from a licensed professional, Defendants do not require students with physical disabilities to provide the information required of students with psychological disabilities under the PDG.
27. If Defendants do not believe that the documentation provided by a student’s provider is sufficient, Defendants also have the authority to require a student to undergo additional testing or evaluation from a licensed professional at the student’s cost to document the extent of his or her disability. In addition, “[i]f the University determines that a second professional opinion is warranted,” Defendants may require a student to undergo an independent medical exam by a licensed professional other than the student’s own provider. Defendants’ policy does not contain any standards governing when Defendants may require a student seeking a reasonable accommodation for a disability to get a second professional opinion about the existence or extent of his or her disability.
6

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 7 of 19 - Page ID # 7
III. Defendants’ Denial of Ms. Hamilton’s Reasonable Accommodation Request 28. Ms. Hamilton began treatment for depression in or around June 2008 and for
anxiety in or around June 2009. She has been treated by Dr. Ziah Zawaideh and Jill Phelps, an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) who works for a medical practice in Omaha, Nebraska. Ms. Hamilton’s anxiety became disabling in or around June 2009. Ms. Hamilton has been prescribed medications for her depression and anxiety.
29. In or around June 2009, APRN Phelps prescribed a therapy dog for Ms. Hamilton. 30. In or around 2009, Ms. Hamilton acquired a four-pound miniature pinscher named Butch. 31. Tammy Hamilton-Iverson, Ms. Hamilton’s mother, and her husband trained Butch to respond to Ms. Hamilton’s anxiety attacks. When Ms. Hamilton has an anxiety attack, Butch is trained to place his front paws on her shoulders, which helps Ms. Hamilton concentrate and distracts her from the anxiety. 32. Ms. Hamilton enrolled to attend UNK for the Fall Semester of 2010. 33. Ms. Hamilton signed a lease to live at University Heights from August 12, 2010 through May 7, 2011. Ms. Hamilton had no alternative housing options in or around Kearney. 34. Ms. Hamilton made three reasonable accommodation requests to live with Butch, her emotional assistance animal, at University Heights because of her disability. She made her first request verbally, in or around April 2010, to Defendant Brandt during a pre-enrollment campus visit. At that time, Defendant Brandt indicated that she could not live in the university dormitories with a dog but that, subject to approval of her accommodation request, she could live at University Heights. She made her second request in writing on or around September 3, 2010. She made a third request in writing on or around September 15, 2010.
7

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 8 of 19 - Page ID # 8
35. Defendants were aware that Ms. Hamilton had been diagnosed with anxiety, and Defendants knew or should have known that her anxiety impaired her ability to sleep and to breathe. Defendants were also aware that Ms. Hamilton only sought to live with her emotional assistance animal; she made clear that she would leave the dog in her apartment and would not need to bring the dog to campus.
36. Defendants denied each of these reasonable accommodation requests based solely on Defendants’ refusal to accommodate emotional assistance animals in university housing. Defendants stated that her accommodation request would be granted only if Ms. Hamilton could provide documentation from her doctor that Butch had been trained and certified as a service animal as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“ADA”)
37. Before and after moving to University Heights, Ms. Hamilton asked her medical provider to send documentation to UNK in support of her accommodation request. APRN Phelps sent letters on August 10, 2010 and September 13, 2010. In both letters, APRN Phelps confirmed that Ms. Hamilton was under her care for anxiety and that Ms. Hamilton would benefit from living with an emotional assistance animal. In the first letter, APRN Phelps stated that she believed that the dog may help with her anxiety by giving her “a sense of stability,” “build her confidence,” and “distraction from her anxiety.” Ms. Phelps further stated that “[m]ultiple studies have shown that petting or stroking a pet can have positive effects emotionally.” In the second letter, she opined that an emotional assistance animal “would be an excellent adjuvant therapy to her medications for anxiety treatment” and reiterated that “[s]tudies have shown the positive effects of caring for a dog,” including “distracting the individual” from her anxiety. APRN Phelps provided her telephone number and stated in both letters that she
8

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 9 of 19 - Page ID # 9
would make herself available to answer any questions that Defendants had about Ms. Hamilton’s reasonable accommodations request.
38. On or about August 19, 2010, Defendant Brandt met with Ms. Hamilton to discuss her request for an accommodation. During that meeting, Defendant Brandt informed Ms. Hamilton that she should seek counseling at UNK’s Counseling and Health Care and that Counseling and Health Care could assist her in gathering any information necessary to evaluate her accommodation request.
39. At and following this meeting, Ms. Hamilton repeatedly stated that she was willing to provide any information she could or take any steps necessary to document her disability and need to live with her emotional assistance animal.
40. Ms. Hamilton requested that APRN Phelps contact Defendant Brandt to provide any additional information he might need to evaluate her request. On or about August 20, 2010, APRN Phelps called Defendant Brandt. Defendant Brandt informed Ms. Phelps that only a certified service animal would qualify as an accommodation. She informed Defendant Brandt that she did not know whether the dog had been certified. Defendant Brandt only asked Ms. Phelps whether the dog had any certifications or training as a service animal; he did not ask any questions related to Ms. Hamilton’s disability or need for an emotional assistance animal.
41. At Defendant Brandt’s behest, Ms. Hamilton went to at least two counseling sessions at UNK’s Counseling and Health Care. Ms. Hamilton met with Linda Shaw, a licensed counselor, on or about August 27 and September 2, 2010. During these sessions, Ms. Hamilton described the symptoms of her anxiety and informed Ms. Shaw that she had difficulty breathing during anxiety attacks and that the anxiety affected her ability to sleep. She also informed Ms. Shaw that her emotional assistance animal helped alleviate the anxiety.
9

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 10 of 19 - Page ID # 10
42. Defendant Brandt knew that Ms. Hamilton went to see Ms. Shaw for counseling. 43. Ms. Hamilton also signed two medical releases. The first release permitted APRN Phelps’ office to release her full medical records to UNK’s Counseling and Health Care. The second release permitted UNK’s Counseling and Health Care to release any “Written/Verbal Information” in her medical file to Defendant Brandt. 44. On or about August 31, 2010, Ms. Hamilton’s complete medical records were sent to UNK. Her medical file confirms that Ms. Hamilton received treatment and medication for depression starting in 2008 and anxiety starting in June 2009. 45. On or about August 31, 2010, Ms. Hamilton sent an email to Defendant Brandt, urgently informing him that without her emotional assistance animal, she was having difficulty sleeping and that “it is really cutting into my classes and school work.” Ms. Hamilton reiterated her willingness to provide any information that Defendants felt they needed to grant her request. 46. Defendant Brandt responded to Ms. Hamilton’s email message later that day, stating “[i]f you are able to provide the necessary certification for your dog it will not be a problem to allow it on campus.” 47. On or about September 2, 2010, Ms. Hamilton’s mother, Tammy Hamilton Iverson, called Defendant Brandt to discuss Ms. Hamilton’s request. Defendant Brandt informed Ms. Iverson that Defendants would not grant the reasonable accommodation request unless the dog was certified as a service animal. During this or the multiple subsequent conversations she had with Defendants Brandt or Bressington, Ms. Iverson explained that she was not aware of any training certification program for emotional support animals, but that she and her husband had trained the dog to sense when Ms. Hamilton is having an anxiety attack and to help calm her by, for example, placing his paws on her shoulders.
10

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 11 of 19 - Page ID # 11
48. On September 3, 2010, Ms. Hamilton submitted a formal, written request seeking an accommodation to live with her emotional assistance animal at University Heights. In this request, Ms. Hamilton stated that she had provided documentation from “both my regular physician and the counseling services you recommended.”
49. Defendants Brandt, Zeller, Bressington and Horn reviewed Ms. Hamilton’s September 3, 2010 request and denied the request because her dog was not certified as a trained service animal. In evaluating her request, Defendants Brandt, Bressington, and Horn referred to this emotional assistance animal as a “pet.”
50. Defendant Horn, for example, emailed Defendant Bressington, on or about September 8, 2010, stating that Ms. Hamilton’s reasonable accommodations request should be denied because “[t]his is not a service animal but rather a pet.” Defendant Horn continued: “[U]nless this animal can be classified as a service animal, we are opening a big can of worms. In essence, anyone can have their doctor say they are anxious and need to have their dog, cat, snake, or monkey, etc.”
51. On or about September 15, 2010, Defendant Brandt met with Ms. Hamilton and informed her that her accommodations request had been denied. He later sent her an email summarizing the meeting and presenting her with two options. Her first option was to discontinue living with her emotional assistance animal, adding that in doing so, she “will have chosen to go beyond what Butch is able to provide for you and to grow toward more independence.” Defendant Brandt indicated that to that end, Ms. Hamilton could use the services of UNK Counseling and Health Care “to begin to overcome some of the issues you deal with concerning your anxiety.” Defendant Brandt stated that the second option was to continue to live with Butch but would require her to get “out of the housing contract” and move to non-
11

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 12 of 19 - Page ID # 12
student housing, an option he acknowledged Ms. Hamilton had already informed him she could not afford.
52. Later that day, Ms. Hamilton’s mother sent a second accommodation request to UNK, specifically making the request for “accommodation of her assistance animal per the Fair Housing Act.” She attached a copy of the Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act (May 17, 2004).
53. Two days later, on or about September 17, 2010, Mr. Brandt emailed Ms. Hamilton stating that “[a]fter reviewing your documentation once more . . . I have found that it seems we have been looking at the requested accommodation and have yet to acquire the necessary documentation of a disability” required by UNK’s PDG. Defendants Bressington and Zeller were copied on this email.
54. Defendant Brandt acknowledged that APRN Phelps qualified as an evaluator for the purposes of the PDG, but stated that APRN Phelps must provide all of the other information required by the PDG. This email is the first written correspondence from any Defendant to Ms. Hamilton suggesting that Defendants did not have sufficient information about her disability.
55. Despite Ms. Hamilton’s having signed releases providing Defendant Brandt full access to any written or verbal information from her medical files from UNK’s Counseling and Health Care, and despite having directed Ms. Hamilton to counseling sessions at UNK’s Counseling and Health Care and being aware that she had met with Ms. Shaw for counseling sessions, Defendants never asked Ms. Shaw for her opinions about Ms. Hamilton’s request or whether her medical file provided additional information relevant to Ms. Hamilton’s request to live with the emotional assistance dog.
12

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 13 of 19 - Page ID # 13
56. Nor did any Defendant make any effort to contact APRN Phelps to inquire about Ms. Hamilton’s disability, her need for an emotional assistance animal, or any other information listed in the PDG.
57. Five days later, on or about September 23, 2010, Defendants Bressington, Zeller, and Brandt again denied Ms. Hamilton’s reasonable accommodations request. Defendant Bressington emailed Ms. Hamilton to inform her of the decision, stating that “I am letting you know that you cannot continue to have the dog in the Residence Hall.” Defendants Brandt and Zeller were copied on this email. Defendants did not mention any deficiencies in the documentation of Ms. Hamilton’s disability or need for the dog in their denial of her accommodations request.
58. Instead, Defendant Bressington asserted that UNK is not required to comply with the Fair Housing Act and is only required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendant Bressington further asserted that under the “recently updated” ADA regulations, only service animals with training qualify as accommodations under the ADA. Defendant Bressington stated that Defendants’ denial of her accommodations request would be reconsidered only “[i]f you can provide documentation that your dog has been trained to provide assistance and documentation of what that assistance is from a doctor.”
59. Defendants knew or should have known that Ms. Hamilton had no documentation for Butch’s training based on previous conversations with Ms. Hamilton, APRN Phelps and Ms. Iverson.
60. The Department of Justice published revisions to regulations for Title II and Title III of the ADA on September 15, 2010. In announcing these revised regulations, the Department of Justice made clear that “emotional support animals that do not qualify as service animals
13

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 14 of 19 - Page ID # 14
under the [ADA] regulation may nevertheless qualify as permitted reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities under the [Fair Housing Act],” and that public entities operating housing facilities “may not use the ADA definition of service animal as a justification for reducing their [Fair Housing Act] obligations.” Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Servs., 75 Fed. Reg. 56164, 56166 (Sept. 15, 2010). The Department of Justice emphasized that “particularly in the context of residential settings,” “there may be a legal obligation to permit the use of animals that do not qualify as service animals under the ADA, but nonetheless provides necessary emotional support to persons with disabilities.”
61. The ADA regulations also state unambiguously that a public entity “shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(f).
62. Because Defendants refused her request to live with her emotional assistance animal at University Heights, Ms. Hamilton withdrew from classes at UNK on or about October 14, 2010 and ultimately moved out of University Heights on or about October 28, 2010.
63. A few weeks after denying Ms. Hamilton’s reasonable accommodations request, Defendants denied another student’s request for a reasonable accommodation to live with an emotional support dog at University Heights. Defendant Brandt expressly informed the student that UNK considers untrained emotional assistance animals to be pets and that an accommodation would be granted only if she could find a dog that was trained to provide a service, such as a trained guide dog for people who are blind.
64. Ms. Hamilton timely filed a complaint of discrimination with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a).
14

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 15 of 19 - Page ID # 15
65. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a) and (b), the Secretary of HUD investigated this complaint, attempted conciliation without success, and prepared a final investigative report. Based on the information gathered in the course of this investigation, the Secretary, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g), determined that reasonable cause existed to believe that Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act. Accordingly, on September 30, 2011, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g)(2)(A), the Secretary issued a Determination of Reasonable Cause and Charge of Discrimination against Defendants.
66. On or about October 24, 2011, Defendants timely elected to have these charges resolved in a federal civil action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(a).
67. The Secretary of HUD subsequently authorized the Attorney General to file this action on behalf of Ms. Hamilton, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(o).
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-67, supra. 69. By the actions and statements referred to in the foregoing paragraphs, Defendants have:
(a) Refused to rent, refused to negotiate for the rental for, or otherwise made unavailable or denied, a dwelling because of disability, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A);
(b) Discriminated in the terms, conditions or privileges of the rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, on the basis of disability, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2);
15

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 16 of 19 - Page ID # 16
(c) Discriminated in the terms, conditions or privileges of the rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, on the basis of disability, by refusing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2), (f)(3)(B).
70. By the actions and statements referred to in the foregoing paragraphs, Defendants UNK, the Board, Brandt, Bressington, and Horn have made, printed or published, or have caused to be made, printed, or published, statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicated a preference, limitation or discrimination based on disability, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).
71. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Brittany Hamilton has been injured and is an aggrieved person as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i).
72. Defendants’ conduct described herein was intentional, willful, and taken in reckless disregard for Ms. Hamilton’s rights.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 73. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-72, supra. 74. Defendants’ actions, conduct, policies, and statements, as described above, constitute:
16

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 17 of 19 - Page ID # 17
(a) A pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a); or
(b) A denial to a group of persons of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631, which raises an issue of general public importance, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).
75. In addition to Brittany Hamilton, other persons may have been injured by Defendants’ discriminatory actions and practices as described above. Such individuals are also “aggrieved persons” under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i).
WHEREFORE, the United States prays that this Court enter an order that: 1. Declares that Defendants’ actions, policies and practices, as alleged herein, violate the Fair Housing Act; 2. Enjoins Defendants, their agents, employees and successors, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them, from: (a) discriminating on the basis disability in any aspect of the rental or lease of a dwelling; (b) discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, on the basis of disability; (c) stating any preference, limitation or discrimination on the basis of disability;
17

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 18 of 19 - Page ID # 18
(d) failing or refusing to take such steps as may be necessary to restore, as nearly as practicable, Brittany Hamilton and any other aggrieved persons to the position they would have been in but for the discriminatory conduct; and
(e) failing or refusing to take such steps as may be necessary to prevent the recurrence of any discriminatory conduct in the future and to eliminate, to the extent practicable, the effects of Defendants’ unlawful housing practices;
3. Awards monetary damages, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 3612(o)(3) and 3613(c)(1) and 3614(d)(1)(B), to all persons harmed by Defendants’ discriminatory practices; and
4. Assesses a civil penalty against Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C), to vindicate the public interest.
The United States further prays for such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.
The United States of America hereby requests that trial of the above and foregoing action should be held in Lincoln, Nebraska, and that the case be calendared accordingly.
18

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 11/23/11 Page 19 of 19 - Page ID # 19

November 23, 2011 __s/_L_A__U_R_I_E__A_._K__E_L_L_Y________
MA Bar No. 5575755

s/STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM
1
s/MARY J. HAHN
1
, DC Bar No. 500193

 
 4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 290 Filed: 09/04/15 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 5221

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

4:11-CV-3209

vs.

CONSENT ORDER

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT KEARNEY, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to Approve and Enter Consent Order (filing 287). That motion is granted, and the following consent order is entered.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On November 23, 2011, the United States filed this action against the University of Nebraska at Kearney, the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, and Gail Zeller, alleging violations of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 ("Fair Housing Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631. On August 25, 2015, the Court dismissed David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn and Gail Zeller from this action.
2. The University of Nebraska at Kearney and the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (collectively referred to hereafter as "Defendants") operate and control University Heights, an apartment style student housing complex which includes 102 one-bedroom and efficiency units. University Heights is occupied by students enrolled full-time at the University of Nebraska at Kearney who are single parents, married, or twenty-one years of age or older.
II. UNITED STATES' ALLEGATIONS AND DEFENDANTS' DENIALS
3. The United States filed this suit on behalf of a former UNK student, Brittany Hamilton, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(o). The United States

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 290 Filed: 09/04/15 Page 2 of 10 - Page ID # 5222
also alleges that Defendants, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a), engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act or a denial to a group of persons of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, which denial raises an issue of general public importance.
4. In its complaint, the United States also alleges that Defendants engaged in discriminatory conduct at university housing owned and/or managed by the Defendants at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. The United States' Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. ("FHA"), and specifically 42 U.S.C. § 3604 subsections (f)(1),(2) and (3)(B) by refusing to allow students to live with animals as reasonable accommodations when such accommodations were reasonable and necessary to afford students with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy student housing at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. The United States further alleges that, as a result of this alleged unlawful conduct, two students with alleged disabilities seeking reasonable accommodations for the University of Nebraska at Kearney's student housing suffered damages.
5. The United States' Complaint also alleges that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) by making, printing or publishing statements and notices with respect to the rental of student housing that indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination because of a disability.
6. The University of Nebraska at Kearney and the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, individually and collectively, deny all of the allegations in the United States' Complaint and deny that they have violated the FHA in any manner, and contend that at all times, they operated student housing at the University of Nebraska at Kearney in compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations that prohibit discrimination.
III. AGREEMENT TO COMPROMISE
7. The parties agree that to avoid costly and protracted litigation and trial, the United States' claims against Defendants should be resolved without trial.
- 2 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 290 Filed: 09/04/15 Page 3 of 10 - Page ID # 5223
8. The University of Nebraska at Kearney and the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska voluntarily enter into this Consent Order to resolve disputed claims solely to avoid the costs of protracted litigation.
9. Nothing in this Consent Order or the decision to compromise and settle this lawsuit is or should be construed as an admission of liability or wrongdoing on the part of the University of Nebraska at Kearney and/or the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, individually or collectively.
10. The University of Nebraska at Kearney and the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska furthermore affirmatively assert that they complied with all applicable federal and state statutes and regulations prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities consistent with their goal to develop an academic community accessible to persons with disabilities to ensure equal educational opportunity for all.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED:
IV. AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF
11. The University of Nebraska at Kearney ("UNK") is hereby enjoined from:
a. Discriminating against persons in the rental and provision of student housing because of a disability in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1);
b. Discriminating against persons in the terms, conditions, or privileges of student housing, or in the provision of services in connection with student housing because of a disability in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2);
c. Making, printing or publishing or causing to be made, printed, or published, any notice or statement with respect to the rental of student housing that indicates a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on disability, or intending to make such preference, limitation, or discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c); and
d. Refusing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be
- 3 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 290 Filed: 09/04/15 Page 4 of 10 - Page ID # 5224
necessary to afford a person with a disability seeking to live or living in UNK student housing an equal opportunity to use and enjoy student housing in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
V. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION POLICIES
12. Within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Consent Order, UNK shall adopt the "University Housing Reasonable Accommodation Policy" that is attached hereto as Exhibit A1, and the "University of Nebraska at Kearney Assistance Animal Policy and Agreement" that is attached hereto as Exhibit A2. UNK shall follow these policies for receiving, evaluating, and determining whether to grant or deny reasonable accommodations requested by students with disabilities in rules, policies, practices, or services relating to UNK's student housing and assistance animals in student housing.
13. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the entry of this Consent Order by the Court, UNK shall provide copies of the University Housing Reasonable Accommodation Policy and the Assistance Animal Policy and Agreement to UNK's Director of Disability Services and any employees of Disability Services who have responsibility for implementing1 reasonable accommodation requests in student housing. During the term of this Consent Order, UNK shall also provide a copy of these policies to each newly hired Director of Disability Services and any newly hired employees of Disability Services who have responsibility for implementing reasonable accommodation requests in student housing.
14. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the entry of this Consent Order by the Court, UNK shall provide a copy of the University Housing Reasonable Accommodation Policy and the Assistance Animal Policy and Agreement to UNK's Director of the Office of Residence Life ("Residence Life") and any employees of Residence Life who have responsibility for implementing reasonable accommodation requests. During the term of this Consent Order, UNK shall also provide copies of these policies to each newly hired Director of Residence Life and any
1 For purposes of Sections V and VI of this Consent Order, the term "implement" means involvement in the review, consideration, decision-making and appeal of reasonable accommodation requests related to university housing and the creation, implementation or revision of housing-related reasonable accommodation policies.
- 4 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 290 Filed: 09/04/15 Page 5 of 10 - Page ID # 5225
newly hired employees of Residence Life who have responsibility for implementing reasonable accommodation requests.
15. Within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Consent Order by the Court, and for the term of this Consent Order, UNK shall post and prominently display the University Housing Reasonable Accommodation Policy and the Assistance Animal Policy and Agreement in the Office of Disability Services and the Office of Residence Life. UNK shall also post both of these policies, or a link to both of these policies, on the official UNK website for Disability Services.
16. Any proposed changes to the University Housing Reasonable Accommodation Policy and the Assistance Animal Policy and Agreement and related posted webpages referred to in Paragraphs 1215 during the duration of this Consent Order must be provided to the United States by facsimile and next-day delivery to the United States for its review and comment at least thirty (30) days before being implemented. The proposed changes shall be considered approved upon the expiration of the 30th day unless UNK receives a written objection from the United States within the 30-day notice period. To the extent the United States objects to any changes to these policies proposed in accordance with this paragraph, and the parties cannot resolve the dispute among themselves, such dispute may be submitted to the Court in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions of Paragraph 34 of this Consent Order.
VI. NOTICE AND TRAINING
17. Within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Consent Order by the Court, UNK shall provide the Summary of this Order ("Summary"), attached as Exhibit B, to the Director of Disability Services and any employees of Disability Services who have responsibility for implementing reasonable accommodation requests in student housing. UNK shall also secure the signed statement from each person with responsibility for implementing reasonable accommodation requests in student housing acknowledging that he or she has received and read the Summary and agrees to abide by the relevant provisions of this Order. This statement shall be in the form of Exhibit C attached hereto.
- 5 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 290 Filed: 09/04/15 Page 6 of 10 - Page ID # 5226
18. Within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Consent Order by the Court, UNK shall provide the Summary to the Director of Residence Life and any employees of Residence Life who have responsibility for implementing reasonable accommodation requests in student housing. UNK shall also secure the signed statement from each person with responsibility for implementing reasonable accommodation requests in student housing acknowledging that he or she has received and read the Summary and agrees to abide by the relevant provisions of this Order. This statement shall be in the form of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
19. Within ninety (90) days from the date of entry of this Consent Order by the Court, the Director of Disability Services, any employees of the Office of Disability Services who have responsibility for implementing reasonable accommodation requests in student housing, the Director of the Residence Life, and any employees of Residence Life who have responsibility for implementing reasonable accommodation requests, shall attend, at UNK's expense, an in-person education and training program on the FHA, with specific emphasis on discrimination on the basis of disability. The training shall be conducted by a qualified person approved in advance by the United States, with experience and understanding of the reasonable accommodation requirements of the FHA. UNK shall obtain from the trainer, certifications of attendance, executed by each individual who received the training, confirming his or her attendance. The certification shall include the name of the course, the date the course was attended, and the length of the course and/or time within which the course was completed.
20. During the term of this Order, within thirty (30) days after the hiring of a new Director of Disability Services, any new employee of the Office of Disability Services who has responsibility for implementing reasonable accommodation requests in student housing, a new Director of Residence Life, and any new employee of the Office of Residence Life who has responsibility for implementing reasonable accommodation requests, UNK shall provide a copy of the Summary to such new employee and secure the signed statement from such employee acknowledging that he or she has received and read the Summary, had the opportunity to have questions about the Summary and Order answered, and agrees to abide by the relevant provisions of the Order. This statement shall be in the form of Exhibit C.
- 6 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 290 Filed: 09/04/15 Page 7 of 10 - Page ID # 5227
VII. RELIEF FOR ALLEGED AGGRIEVED PERSONS
21. The United States has identified Brittany Hamilton ('Hamilton") and Denise Kraft ("Kraft") as alleged aggrieved persons whom it believes were harmed by the Defendants' conduct. Defendants agree to pay the total sum of ONE HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS and 00/100 ($140,000.00) to a Settlement Fund. Within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Consent Order by the Court, the United States shall notify Defendants of the amount of monetary damages that should be paid from the Settlement Fund to Hamilton and Kraft. Within thirty (30) days of receiving such notice, Defendants shall deliver to the United States checks payable to Hamilton and Kraft in the amounts identified by the United States, and checks shall be delivered to each upon execution of a release in the form of Exhibit D. In no event shall the aggregate of the checks exceed the amount of the Settlement Fund.
VIII. REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS
22. For the term of this Consent Order, UNK shall also preserve all records related to this Consent Order. Such documents include housing contracts, student housing files, student housing policies and procedures, and written communications (or records of oral communications) between UNK (including but not limited to Disability Services and Residence Life) and any student who has requested a reasonable accommodation in UNK student housing that are related to such a request.
23. For the term of this Consent Order, UNK shall keep written records of each request for reasonable accommodation in student housing it receives. These records shall include: (a) the name, address, and telephone number of the person making the request; (b) the date upon which the request was received; (c) the nature of the request (i.e. the accommodation requested and disability for which the accommodation was requested); (d) whether the request was granted or denied; and (e) if the request was denied, the reason(s) for the denial.
24. For the term of this Consent Order, UNK shall notify counsel for the United States of any written complaint filed against it or any of its employees by a student alleging failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in student housing which is filed in a court of law or with a governmental civil rights enforcement agency, such as the U.S.
- 7 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 290 Filed: 09/04/15 Page 8 of 10 - Page ID # 5228
Department of Housing and Urban Development through its Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity or the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission within thirty (30) days of the filing of such written complaint. The notification shall include a copy of the written complaint. UNK shall also promptly provide the United States all information, documents, or records it reasonably requests concerning any such complaint after UNK has fulfilled its obligation to provide notice and an opportunity for the student to object to the proposed disclosure of such information or documents pursuant to Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA"). If, pursuant to FERPA, a student objects to the release of his or her personal information pursuant to this paragraph, UNK shall be relieved of its obligation to provide such information, documents, or records. UNK shall inform the United States in writing within thirty (30) days after the date on which UNK resolves any complaint covered by this paragraph of the terms of such resolution.
25. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date of entry of this Consent Order, and annually thereafter from the date of entry of this Consent Order during the term of this Consent Order, UNK shall submit to counsel for the United States a compliance report which shall contain the following:
a. The information in Paragraph 24 above, if not yet reported;
b. The signed statements and certifications of each employee referred to in Paragraphs 17, 18, and 20;
c. Photographs establishing that the University Housing Reasonable Accommodation Policy and the Assistance Animal Policy and Agreement are posted in Disability Services and Residence Life as described in Paragraph 15; and
d. Copies of certifications of attendance for fair housing training pursuant to Paragraph 19.
26. The final report required under Paragraph 25 above shall be submitted no later than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date of this Consent Order.
27. All documents or other communications required by this Consent Order to be sent to the United States shall reference "DJ#175-45-61" and
- 8 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 290 Filed: 09/04/15 Page 9 of 10 - Page ID # 5229
shall be sent by facsimile to (202) 514-1116 or by overnight mail to: Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, 1800 G Street NW, Suite 7032, Washington, D.C. 20006.
28. During the term of this Consent Order, UNK shall maintain all records relating to implementation of and compliance with all provisions of this Consent Order. Upon request, UNK shall provide the United States with copies of any records maintained as required by this Consent Order.
IX. INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
29. For the duration of this Order, upon reasonable notice to UNK and at reasonable times as agreed upon by the parties, representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice shall be permitted to inspect and copy, at the United States' expense, all records UNK is required to maintain as provided in this Consent Order to monitor Defendants' compliance with this Order.
X. RELEASE OF LITIGATION HOLDS AND ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
30. The parties agree that, as of the date of entry of this Consent Order, litigation is not "reasonably foreseeable" concerning the matters described herein. To the extent that any party previously implemented a litigation hold to preserve documents, electronically stored information, or things related to the matters described herein, the party is no longer required to maintain such litigation hold. Nothing in this paragraph relieves any party of any other obligations imposed by the Consent Order.
XI. MODIFICATIONS, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS, AND REMEDIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
31. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of enforcing this Consent Order, which shall be effective for a period of two (2) years following the date of its entry.
32. Any provisions of this Consent Order, including but not limited to time limits for performance, may be modified by mutual written agreement of the parties or by motion to the Court. If the modification is by
- 9 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 290 Filed: 09/04/15 Page 10 of 10 - Page ID # 5230
written agreement of the parties, then such modification will be effective thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of the written agreement with the Court, and shall remain in effect for the duration of the Consent Order or until such time as the Court indicates through a written order that it has not approved the modification. 33. The parties to this Consent Order shall be responsible for their own attorney's fees and court costs. 34. The parties shall endeavor in good faith to resolve informally any differences regarding interpretation of and compliance with this Consent Order prior to bringing such matters to the Court for resolution. However, in the event of a failure by UNK, whether willful or otherwise, to perform in a timely manner any act required by this Order, or in the event of any other act violating any provision hereof, the United States may move this Court to impose any remedy authorized by law or equity.
XII. TERM AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 35. The term of this Consent Order is two (2) years. Upon entry of this
Consent Order by the Court, this case shall be automatically dismissed with prejudice. However, the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the action for the term of this Consent Order. Dated this 4th day of September, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard United States District Judge
- 10 -

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

4:11-CV-3209

vs.

JUDGMENT

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT KEARNEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Upon the parties' Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal (filing 289), and pursuant to the accompanying Consent Order, this case is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to be responsible for its own costs and attorney fees.
Dated this 4th day of September, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard United States District Judge

 
 4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 80 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 1 of 12 - Page ID # 802

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

4:11-CV-3209

vs.
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT KEARNEY, et al.,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendants.

The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (FHA), generally makes it unlawful to deny a "dwelling" to a person based on the person's handicap. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f). The question presented is whether student housing at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (UNK) is a "dwelling" within the meaning of the FHA. The Court concludes that it is, making the antidiscrimination provisions of the FHA applicable. Accordingly, the Court will deny the defendants' motion for summary judgment and grant the United States' motion.
BACKGROUND The underlying dispute here involves a service animal. The United States, as plaintiff, is suing on behalf of Brittany Hamilton, who has been diagnosed with depression and anxiety. Filing 1 at 1, 3, 7. A therapy dog has been prescribed for Hamilton and is trained to respond to her anxiety attacks. Filing 1 at 7. After Hamilton enrolled to attend UNK for the fall semester in 2010, she signed a lease to live at University Heights, one of UNK's student housing facilities. Filing 1 at 7. But Hamilton's requests to live with her dog were denied, based on UNK's no-pets policy for student housing. Filing 1 at 4, 7. After a few weeks, Hamilton withdrew from her classes and moved out of University Heights. Filing 1 at 14. UNK is a four-year university in the University of Nebraska system, and it provides student housing for approximately 2,280 students annually.1
1 Pursuant to NECivR 56.1, a party moving for summary judgment must include in its brief a statement of material facts about which the movant contends there is no dispute, and the party opposing summary judgment must include in its brief a concise response to that statement of facts, noting any disagreement. Properly referenced material facts in the movant’s statement are considered admitted unless controverted in the opposing party’s

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 80 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 2 of 12 - Page ID # 803
Filing 41 at 3, 5. There are a variety of available living arrangements, including the sort of on-campus dormitory-style residence halls most commonly associated with university housing, but also including suites, fraternities and sororities, and private apartments. Filing 41 at 5. During the 2010-11 academic year, UNK charged between $3,569 and $4,214 per semester for room and board. Filing 41 at 5.
UNK students who are under the age of 19 on the first day of the semester are required to live in university housing, subject to limited exceptions. Filing 39 at 3. According to UNK, living in university housing promotes a student's educational experience. Filing 39 at 3. Students do not get to choose their own rooms; instead, students elect a building preference and UNK assigns them to a room. Filing 39 at 4. Most UNK students living on campus list a "permanent address" different from their campus address. Filing 39 at 4. Students living in university housing (except for students living in University Heights) must also purchase a meal plan. Filing 39 at 5. Most (but not all) university housing closes during academic breaks: Thanksgiving, winter, and spring. Filing 39 at 5. University Heights and another housing facility are open for students who remain during the summer semester, while other university housing facilities are used as lodging for camps and conferences UNK hosts. Filing 39 at 5.
The housing unit most particularly at issue here, University Heights, is located about a mile off campus. Filing 41 at 9. UNK describes it as "apartment-style living" for "families and single students above the age of 21 who are currently enrolled as full-time students at UNK."2 Filings 41 at 9; 49-1 at 20. University Heights contains one-bedroom and efficiency apartments that, like many commercial apartments, are unfurnished except for a stove and refrigerator. Filing 41 at 9. Students are responsible for bringing their own furniture and for cleaning and maintaining their apartments. Filing 41 at 9. Utilities are provided by UNK except for
response. NECivR 56.1(b)(1). Except where noted, the facts stated in this Memorandum and Order are contained in one of the parties' statements of fact and not controverted by the opposing party. While the parties have the usual grievances about one another's assertions, there appears to be very little meaningful disagreement about the facts material to the issue presented by these motions.
2 The record contains many of UNK's publications describing its housing options. UNK often describes its housing with terms such as "your home away from home." Filing 49-1 at 3. While that is not irrelevant, the Court has focused more on evidence of the actual student experience, and less on the promotional material produced by UNK. That material is best understood as an effort to foster a spirit of community, and to appeal to students and parents who may have concerns about what is probably, for many students, their first experience of living outside the family residence. The Court has been careful not to read too much into it; the reality of student living is far more important than UNK's marketing.
- 2 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 80 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 3 of 12 - Page ID # 804
telephone and Internet access. Filing 49-1 at 37. Rent at University Heights as of July 1, 2010, was $390 per month for a one-bedroom apartment and $320 per month for an efficiency apartment. Filings 41 at 10; 44-2 at 5. Students living in University Heights are permitted to stay in their apartments during the summer semester (and, presumably, during other academic breaks) if they maintain a sufficient courseload or if they are registered to be full-time students for the following fall semester. Filing 49-1 at 34.
The United States has brought the present case on Hamilton's behalf, alleging that UNK's conduct in denying Hamilton's request for an accommodation violated the FHA. Filing 1 at 1, 15-17. The defendants are UNK, the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, and various UNK officials (collectively, UNK). Filing 1 at 2-3. The present cross-motions for partial summary judgment (filings 37 and 40) are directed at the narrow issue of whether UNK's student housing facilities are "dwellings" covered by the FHA.
STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The movant bears the initial responsibility of informing the Court of the basis for the motion, and must identify those portions of the record which the movant believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the evidence are jury functions, not those of a judge. Id. Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. Id. Rule 56 also allows the Court to grant summary judgment as to some issues but not as to others. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Upon doing so, the Court may "enter an order stating any material fact—including an item of damages or other relief—that is not genuinely in dispute," and thereby treat such a fact "as established in the case." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g). The cross-motions for summary judgment before the Court present only one issue: whether UNK's student housing facilities are "dwellings" within the meaning of the FHA.
ANALYSIS The various antidiscrimination provisions of the FHA generally proscribe discrimination with respect to "a dwelling." "'Dwelling' means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or
- 3 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 80 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 4 of 12 - Page ID # 805
intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families . . . ."3 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b). But the FHA does not define a "residence." So, in order to determine whether student housing is a "dwelling" covered by the FHA, the Court must determine whether it is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence. In making that determination, the Court is guided by the principle that the FHA implements a policy to which Congress has accorded the highest national priority, and it is to be construed liberally in accordance with that purpose. United States v. Hughes Mem'l Home, 396 F. Supp. 544, 548 (W.D. Va. 1975) (citing Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 211-12 (1972)); see also Lakeside Resort Enters., LP v. Bd. of Supervisors of Palmyra Twp., 455 F.3d 154, 156 (3d Cir. 2006) (courts are to give generous construction to FHA's broad and inclusive language).
"Residence" is not defined by the FHA. When a word is not defined by statute, a court normally construes it in accord with its ordinary or natural meaning. United States v. Jungers, 702 F.3d 1066, 1071 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 228 (1993)). Courts have held that the ordinary meaning of the word "residence," in this context, is "a temporary or permanent dwelling place, abode, or habitation to which one intends to return as distinguished from a place of temporary sojourn or transient visit." Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201, 1214 (11th Cir. 2008); Lakeside Resort Enters., 455 F.3d at 157; see also, e.g., Hughes Mem'l Home, 396 F. Supp. at 549.4 "In other words . . . the house, apartment, condominium, or co-op that you live in is a 'residence,' but the hotel you stay in while vacationing at Disney World is not." Schwarz, 544 F.3d at 1214.
Superficially, UNK's student housing (and particularly University Heights) appears to be residential: students living in those facilities eat their meals, wash their laundry, do their schoolwork, socialize, and sleep there, just as people ordinarily do in the places they call home. And that view finds support in caselaw: boarding schools, in particular, have been found to be "dwellings" within the meaning of the FHA. Franchi v. New Hampton Sch., 656 F. Supp. 2d 252, 260 (D.N.H. 2009); United States v. Mass. Indus. Fin. Agency, 910 F. Supp. 21, 26 n.2 (D. Mass. 1996); cf. Hughes Mem'l Home, 396 F. Supp. at 549 (children's home).
3 "'Family' includes a single individual." 42 U.S.C. § 3602(c).
4 The Eighth Circuit has not spoken to this issue. But this definition was first promulgated in Hughes Mem'l Home nearly 40 years ago, and it has been consistently applied by courts since then, suggesting legislative and administrative acquiescence. See General Dynamics Land Sys. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581, 593-94 (2004).
- 4 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 80 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 5 of 12 - Page ID # 806
UNK argues that its students are "transient" visitors, and that they do not have an "intent to return" to university housing. Filing 39 at 9. UNK points out that most students leave university housing after their first year (when many are no longer required to live there), and that most on-campus students identify "permanent" addresses elsewhere.5 Filing 39 at 14-15. But UNK's argument overlooks the fact that a "residence" may be "temporary or permanent[,]" see Schwarz, 544 F.3d at 1214 (emphasis supplied), without becoming "transient." To hold otherwise would effectively mean that any residence ceases to be a "dwelling" when the resident intends, at some point, to leave: a conclusion that could, for instance, remove any residential premises leased for a finite term from the scope of the FHA. See Cohen v. Twp. of Cheltenham, 174 F. Supp. 2d 307, 323 (E.D. Pa. 2001). That result is simply unsupported by the statutory language, not to mention Congressional intent. See id. UNK's students obviously do not intend to live in university housing for the rest of their lives. But they do intend to live in university housing for extended periods of time that are roughly comparable to many other residential living situations. And that is all the FHA requires. See id.
Instructive in that regard is a series of cases applying the FHA to housing provided for migrant farm workers. Like a university education, temporary farm labor is periodic and roughly seasonal, and like university students, migrant workers may or may not return to the same place season after season, year after year. But courts have consistently held that the quarters provided for those workers by their employers are "dwellings" within the meaning of the FHA. Lauer Farms, Inc. v. Waushara Cnty. Bd. of Adjust., 986 F. Supp. 544 (E.D. Wisc. 1997); Hernandez v. Ever Fresh Co., 923 F. Supp. 1305 (D. Or. 1996); Villegas v. Sandy Farms, Inc., 929 F. Supp. 1324 (D. Or. 1996). Workers' occupancy of such quarters is temporary, and they may only occupy them while engaged in their employment. But their "permanent residences are far removed from their places of employment . . . and during the growing season [they] reside at the farm and nowhere else." Villegas, 929 F. Supp. at 1328.
Because the cabins are occupied by farmworkers and their families for nearly five months of the year, the cabins are far more than mere places of temporary sojourn or transient visit. . . . [D]uring the farmworkers' employment by defendant,
5 Although the record does not directly address this, it would be consistent with the Court's experience that many college students maintain their "home" address for official purposes until after graduation, and perhaps longer—whether they live on campus or, for instance, rent their own off-campus apartments. The Court is not persuaded that the address students choose to use on their driver's licenses changes the character of their lodgings.
- 5 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 80 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 6 of 12 - Page ID # 807
the cabins are their homes. The nature of the workers' occupancy resembles that of a resident far more than that of a hotel guest. In addition, the nature of the workers' employment relationship with defendant, the fact that workers may only occupy the cabins while employed by defendant, and the fact that the cabins are private accommodations available only to defendant's employees, refute the argument that occupants of the cabins resemble hotel guests.
Id. And there is no indication in the FHA that Congress intended to limit its coverage to year-round dwellings, because to do so would create a broad exception that would violate the letter and spirit of the FHA. Id. (citing United States v. Columbus Country Club, 915 F.2d 877, 881 (3d Cir. 1990)). While the workers may have had other places to return to for the rest of the year, that does not mean that the migrant worker quarters were not also places to which they planned to return: "[t]o the contrary, they would have returned to those structures every night for four to five months."6 Lauer Farms, 986 F. Supp. at 559.
Similarly, in finding that halfway houses for recovering substance abusers were "dwellings" within the meaning of the FHA, the Eleventh Circuit pointed out that while the patients were admittedly living there temporarily, their stays were far longer than that of the average hotel guest—6 to 10 weeks, on average, and some as long as 5 months. Schwarz, 544 F.2d at 1215. And the halfway houses were more like homes "because they have common living areas, such as kitchens and living rooms, where residents can socialize like a family." Id. at 1215-16.
[T]he residents treat the halfway houses more like homes than hotels: they sign month-long leases for $1,000 to $2,000 per bedroom; they cook their own food; they eat together; they clean and maintain the premises; and they spend their free time together. Again, these activities suggest that the halfway houses function more like residential homes than hotels.
Id. at 1216; see also Lakeside Resort Enters., 455 F.3d at 159-60. The same can easily be said of university housing, particularly at University Heights.
6 The Court also notes that University Heights' residents are far less "seasonal" than students in other university housing—while residence is still conditioned on enrollment, the periods of residency for University Heights are substantially indistinguishable from (if perhaps a bit shorter than) the lease terms of an ordinary residential apartment.
- 6 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 80 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 7 of 12 - Page ID # 808
University Heights, in particular, resembles nothing more than an apartment building, which would clearly be covered by the FHA. See Robinson v. 12 Lofts Realty, Inc., 610 F.2d 1032, 1036 (2d Cir. 1979). Simply put, students live in university housing for a significant time period, and while they do, they treat it like home. See, Lakeside Resort Enters, 455 F.3d at 159-60; Cohen, 174 F. Supp. 2d at 323.
UNK urges a different comparison. UNK points out that many firstyear students are required to live in university housing. Filing 39 at 16. They are assigned rooms and perhaps roommates, and while they live there they are subject to more onerous rules and restrictions than are normally associated with residential housing. Filing 39 at 16. And UNK argues that the purpose of university housing is educational, rather than to provide a residence. Filing 39 at 16. Based on these facts, UNK makes the unflattering association between university housing and jail, which has been held not to be a dwelling within the meaning of the FHA. Filing 39 at 16. See Garcia v. Condarco, 114 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (D.N.M. 2000). But the Court is not convinced that the comparison is apt.
To begin with, while UNK is free to contend that university housing serves pedagogical ends, the primary way in which student housing furthers the educational mission of a college or university is by providing students with a place to live while they pursue their education. Jail, on the other hand, does not exist so that prisoners have a place to stay while they participate in prison educational programs. As the Garcia court pointed out, a jail is not designed or intended for occupancy as a residence; "[r]ather, the primary purpose of a jail is to provide just punishment, adequate deterrence, protection of the public, and correctional treatment." 114 F. Supp. 2d at 1161. And more importantly, the court in Garcia reasoned that the FHA's policy was to provide for fair housing, which depended on freedom of choice—a purpose that has no application in the prison context. Id. at 1162. While UNK contends that some first-year students are assigned to university housing, they still choose to enroll at UNK, meaning that they have a freedom of choice that is quite unlike going to jail.
And even assuming that UNK uses the environment of university housing to further educational goals (and the Court sees no reason to doubt that), it does not change the character of the dwelling. It is not clear how many of the restrictions relied upon by UNK are imposed on students living in University Heights, as opposed to other university housing facilities. But more fundamentally, the Court rejects the argument that because students live in an environment conducive to the educational process, it changes the nature of the place where they live from a residence to something akin to a correctional center. See Conn. Hosp. v. City of New London, 129 F. Supp. 2d
- 7 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 80 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 8 of 12 - Page ID # 809
123, 132 (D. Conn. 2001). The Conn. Hosp. court rejected a similar argument in finding that the group homes of a substance abuse treatment center were "dwellings" within the meaning of the FHA. See id. The defendants in that case argued that the highly structured nature of the residents' lives compelled a finding that the homes were no longer residential. Id. at 133. But the court found
no merit to defendants' argument that the perceived lack of independence and interrelationship between the residents' treatment . . . and their daily lives changes the nature of the group homes to rehabilitative facilities. Defendants . . . apparently regard the treatment program . . . as authoritarian and view the relationship of the participants with staff as custodial. However, the uncontradicted evidence . . . is that the residents are willing participants in the . . . program, and that the structure of their living arrangements during the outpatient phase of their treatment is largely self-imposed and sought by the residents to facilitate their recovery. . . . As described by the residents, these [homes] give residents the freedom to choose to live by rules that will facilitate recovery, and the support necessary to resist whatever tempts them to backslide. While helpful to rehabilitation, this kind of organization is not confined to rehabilitative facilities; it is the essence of family life— structure that provides standards of behavior, love and support freely given even in the face of misbehavior, and appreciation of the consequences of failing to live up to expectations.
Id. at 133-34. UNK's argument is based on a similar misapprehension: that rules make a place less "residential." While university housing may have more rules than the average off-campus apartment, it is no more restrictive than many other places that people call home. (Many students, in fact, may be less restricted in university housing than in their parental residences.)
The Court's conclusion is buttressed by the regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to implement the FHA. HUD has simply adopted the definition of "dwelling" set forth in the FHA. See 24 C.F.R. § 100.20. And HUD has not defined "residence." But as relevant to disability discrimination, HUD has defined "dwelling unit" as
a single unit of residence for a family or one or more persons. Examples of dwelling units include: a single family home; an apartment unit within an apartment building; and in other types
- 8 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 80 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 9 of 12 - Page ID # 810
of dwellings in which sleeping accommodations are provided but toileting or cooking facilities are shared by occupants of more than one room or portion of the dwelling, rooms in which people sleep. Examples of the latter include dormitory rooms and sleeping accommodations in shelters intended for occupancy as a residence for homeless persons.
24 C.F.R. § 100.201 (emphasis supplied). And HUD's interpretation of the FHA commands considerable
deference. When Congress has delegated authority to an administrative agency to interpret and implement a federal statute, and the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority, the Court gives the agency's interpretation deference pursuant to Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Beeler v. Astrue, 651 F.3d 954, 959 (8th Cir. 2011); see also Northshore Mining Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 709 F.3d 706, 708 (8th Cir. 2013). Under Chevron, the agency's view governs if it is a reasonable interpretation of the statute—not necessarily the only possible interpretation, nor even the interpretation deemed most reasonable by the courts. Beeler, 651 F.3d at 959. The Court is guided by the maxim that where Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at issue, it must sustain the agency's approach so long as it is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Northshore Mining, 709 F.3d at 708. HUD is the agency charged with administering the FHA, and its interpretation is entitled to deference here. See, Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 287-88 (2003); Gladstone Realtors v. Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 107 (1979).
UNK tries to avoid the implications of § 100.201 in two ways. First, UNK argues that the regulation is ambiguous because it does not define "residence." Filing 39 at 21. UNK contends that while § 100.201 defines "dwelling unit," it does not "provide guidance as to whether a particular building or facility is a 'dwelling.'" Filing 39 at 23. In general, that might be the case, but the specific use of the word "dormitory" makes it useful here. If a "dwelling unit" is a unit of residence, then a building containing a "dwelling unit" must be a building designed or intended, at least in part, for occupancy as a residence.7 See Schwarz, 544 F.3d at 1214. And if a dormitory room is an example of a dwelling unit, then the syllogism is complete: a building
7 A building can be part-dwelling: for instance, when a mixed-use building contains both residential and commercial units, the residential unit may be subject to the FHA. See, e.g., Home Quest Mortg. LLC v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 340 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1184-85 (D. Kan. 2004). But that distinction is not important here.
- 9 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 80 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 10 of 12 - Page ID # 811
containing dormitory rooms, i.e., a dormitory, must be a dwelling within the meaning of the FHA.
Second, UNK argues that a "dormitory" is simply defined as "a room for sleeping." Filing 39 at 24 (citing Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dormitory (last visited Nov. 1, 2012)). "Dormitories, therefore," UNK argues, "could include prisons, military barracks, homeless shelters, camps, and numerous other communal lodging facilities." Filing 39 at 24. UNK's point is not entirely clear: a more expansive definition of "dormitory"—and thereby, of "dwelling unit" and "dwelling"— hardly serves its interests. But the Court disagrees with UNK's premise. The HUD definition explains that a "dormitory" is an example of a type of dwelling "in which sleeping accommodations are provided but toileting or cooking facilities are shared by occupants of more than one room or portion of the dwelling, rooms in which people sleep." § 100.201. That describes the paradigmatical university dormitory, and it is consistent with the definition of "dormitory" that is more appropriate in this context: "a residence hall providing rooms for individuals or for groups usually without private baths." Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ dormitory (last visited April 19, 2013); see also New Oxford American Dictionary 504 (2d ed. 2005) (defining "dormitory" as "a large bedroom for a number of people in a school or institution" or "a university or college hall of residence or hostel"). It suffices to conclude that HUD's definition of a "dwelling unit" as including a dormitory is compelling authority supporting the conclusion that UNK's housing facilities are "dwellings" within the meaning of the FHA.
UNK offers a few other arguments it says suggest that university housing is not a "dwelling." First, UNK points out that university housing has been exempted from the Nebraska Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1401 et seq. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1408(1) (excluding residence at an institution if incidental to educational service). Filing 39 at 19. But the Court is not persuaded that Nebraska's landlordtenant law illuminates the meaning of a federal statute. And even if it did, it would cut the other way: the Nebraska Legislature would not have needed to specifically exclude educational institutions from the enactment's definition of "dwelling unit" if educational housing was not included in the general definition to begin with. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1410(3). The Nebraska statute does not help UNK.
Nor does the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). UNK points out that the Department of Justice (DOJ), in promulgating regulations implementing the ADA, decided that the standards applicable to newly constructed educational housing should be those for transient lodging, such
- 10 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 80 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 11 of 12 - Page ID # 812
as hotels, and not those for residential facilities. See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, 75 Fed. Reg. 56,164, 56,215-16 (Sept. 15, 2010). This, UNK suggests, shows that college students are transients, not residents. Filing 39 at 25. But that oversimplifies the decision that the DOJ made.
Perhaps most importantly, the DOJ was not deciding whether the ADA applied at all—it was determining how the ADA should be applied. And in some respects, the ADA compliance standards for transient lodging are more onerous than those for residential facilities. For instance, multistory public buildings generally must have elevators, while residential facilities need not. 75 Fed. Reg. at 56,215. And transient lodging must have accessibility features immediately available, while residential facilities may in some instances have those features ready to install as needed. Id. But residential facilities require other features that transient lodgings do not, such as more usable kitchens, and residential facilities must have a greater percentage of accessible rooms. Id.
The point of all that is to demonstrate that the DOJ's decision was not to assign a heightened or lowered degree of accessibility—it was to determine what type of accessibility was most appropriate for the use of the building. The DOJ used transient lodging as the base standard because it was concerned that the residential standards were insufficient to protect access to educational programs for students with disabilities. And even then, the DOJ added additional requirements for educational housing, such as the residential facilities standards related to turning spaces and kitchen work surfaces. Id. at 56,216. In the end, it suffices to say that the Court finds nothing in the DOJ's rulemaking process that provides any insight into how the Court should apply the well-established standards for determining whether something is a "dwelling" under the FHA.
Finally, UNK argues that Congress did not intend for educational housing to be a "dwelling" because that would alter how colleges and universities operate. Filing 39 at 28. For instance, segregating housing on the basis of gender might be affected. Filing 39 at 29. Essentially, UNK is exhibiting a parade of horribles that could purportedly ensue if UNK is subjected to the FHA.
The Court is not persuaded that UNK's predictions, in their particulars, are realistic. But even if they were, that would not permit the Court to misconstrue the word "dwelling" to avoid them. If the FHA can be read to exclude university housing, then that reading cannot depend on the understanding of the word "dwelling" that UNK urges on the Court. See Franchi, 656 F. Supp. 2d at 261. If colleges and universities need to be exempted from the scope of the statutory language, they are free to ask
- 11 -

4:11-cv-03209-JMG-CRZ Doc # 80 Filed: 04/19/13 Page 12 of 12 - Page ID # 813
Congress to amend the statute, or petition HUD to promulgate new regulations.
In the meantime, the Court must apply the statute as it is written and has been authoritatively construed by HUD. And based on the statute, UNK's student housing facilities are clearly "dwellings" within the meaning of the FHA. Therefore, UNK's motion for summary judgment on that point will be denied, and the United States' cross-motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Plaintiff United States of America’s Cross-Motion For
Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of the Fair Housing Act’s Application to Universities and Colleges (filing 40) is granted. 2. UNK's Motion for Summary Judgment (filing 37) is denied. 3. It is established, for purposes of this case, that UNK's student housing facilities are "dwellings" within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act. Dated this 19th day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard United States District Judge
- 12 -

 
 Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 1 of 30
CLOSED,NEBRASKA−DEFENDANT,NEBRASKADOCKET,PROTECTIVEORDER,TRIAL−LINCOLN,USAPLAINTIFF
U.S. District Court District of Nebraska (4 Lincoln) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:11−cv−03209−JMG−CRZ

United States v University of Nebraska at Kearney Assigned to: Judge John M. Gerrard Referred to: Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart Cause: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/23/2011 Date Terminated: 09/04/2015 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States of America

represented by Alan A. Martinson U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616−2191 Fax: (202) 514−1116 Email: alan.martinson@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colleen M. Melody U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE − CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.−PHB Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305−0616 Fax: (202) 514−1116 Email: colleen.melody@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/08/2014

Elise S. Shore U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE − CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION Housing and Civil Enforcement 1800 G Street, N.W. Suite 7002 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 305−0070 Fax: (202) 514−1116 Email: elise.shore@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A. Kelly U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE − OMAHA 1620 Dodge Street Suite 1400 Omaha, NE 68102−1506 (402) 661−3700 Fax: (402) 661−3081 Email: laurie.kelly@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary J. Hahn U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE − CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION Housing and Civil Enforcement 1800 G Street, N.W. Suite 7002 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 305−0921 Fax: (202) 514−1116 Email: mary.hahn@usdoj.gov

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 2 of 30
TERMINATED: 05/27/2014
Norrinda B. Hayat U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE−WASHINGTON 1800 G Street Washington, DC 20006 (202) 305−3826 Fax: (202) 514−1116 Email: norrinda.hayat@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 02/20/2015
Onjil T. McEachin U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE − CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.−PHB Washington, DC 20530 (202) 353−4136 Fax: (202) 514−1116 Email: onjil.mceachin@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant University of Nebraska at Kearney

represented by Alison A. Basye UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA 3835 Holdrege Lincoln, NE 68583−0745 (402) 472−1201 Fax: (402) 472−2038 Email: abasye@nebraska.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison D. Balus BAIRD, HOLM LAW FIRM 1700 Farnam Street Suite 1500 Omaha, NE 68102−2068 (402) 344−0500 Fax: (402) 344−0588 Email: abalus@bairdholm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony D. Todero BAIRD, HOLM LAW FIRM 1700 Farnam Street Suite 1500, Woodmen Tower Omaha, NE 68102−2068 (402) 344−0500 Fax: (402) 344−0588 Email: atodero@bairdholm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Wiltse UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA 3835 Holdrege Lincoln, NE 68583−0745 (402) 472−1201 Fax: (402) 472−2038 Email: jwiltse@nebraska.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara A. McCue

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 3 of 30

BAIRD, HOLM LAW FIRM 1700 Farnam Street Suite 1500 Omaha, NE 68102−2068 (402) 344−0500 Fax: (402) 344−0588 Email: smccue@bairdholm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott P. Moore BAIRD, HOLM LAW FIRM 1700 Farnam Street Suite 1500 Omaha, NE 68102−2068 (402) 344−0500 Fax: (402) 344−0588 Email: spmoore@bairdholm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska

represented by Alison A. Basye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison D. Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony D. Todero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Wiltse (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara A. McCue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott P. Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant David L. Brandt

represented by Alison A. Basye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison D. Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony D. Todero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Wiltse (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara A. McCue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 4 of 30

Defendant Cheryl Bressington
Defendant Christy Horn
Defendant Gail Zeller

Scott P. Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison A. Basye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison D. Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony D. Todero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Wiltse (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara A. McCue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott P. Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison A. Basye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison D. Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony D. Todero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Wiltse (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara A. McCue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott P. Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison A. Basye (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison D. Balus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 5 of 30

Anthony D. Todero (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Wiltse (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara A. McCue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott P. Moore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/23/2011 11/23/2011 11/23/2011
12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/13/2011 01/27/2012
01/30/2012
02/01/2012 02/06/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with jury demand against All Defendants, by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of United States(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
2 TEXT NOTICE OF JUDGES ASSIGNED: Judge Richard G. Kopf and Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken assigned. (MKR) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
3 REASSIGNMENT ORDER − case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart for judicial supervision and pretrial matters and remains assigned to District Judge Richard G. Kopf for all dispositive matters. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (ADB) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed upon defendant University of Nebraska at Kearney. Waiver sent on 11/29/2011. (Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
5 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed upon defendant Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. Waiver sent on 11/29/2011. (Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed upon defendant David L. Brandt. Waiver sent on 11/29/2011. (Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed upon defendant Cheryl Bressington. Waiver sent on 11/29/2011. (Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed upon defendant Christy Horn. Waiver sent on 11/29/2011. (Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed upon defendant Gail Zeller. Waiver sent on 11/29/2011. (Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
10 ANSWER to Complaint 1 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
11 ATTORNEY LETTER by Clerk that Attorney Alison A. Basye has not paid the biennial assessment. If the requested action is not taken within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter, this matter will be referred to the assigned magistrate judge for the entry of a show cause order. (TCL ) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
12 SCHEDULING PACKET. Rule 26 Meeting Report Deadline set for 3/1/2012.Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (CRZ) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
13 TEXT ORDER regarding District Judge John M. Gerrard's Docket (General Order 2012−01). In civil cases assigned to Judge Gerrard from Judges Bataillon and Smith Camp, Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart will be the assigned magistrate judge. Cases assigned from Judge Kopf to Judge Gerrard will continue to be assigned to Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (AOA) (Entered:

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 6 of 30

03/01/2012 03/01/2012 03/02/2012 03/07/2012
03/09/2012 05/11/2012 05/14/2012 05/14/2012 05/15/2012
05/16/2012 05/16/2012 05/17/2012
05/17/2012

02/06/2012)
14 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting between Defendants and Plaintiff by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
15 Joint STIPULATION regarding Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting 14 ESI and Other Discovery Provisions by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
16 ORDER granting 15 Stipulation regarding Electronic Discovery.Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (CRZ) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
17 FINAL PROGRESSION ORDER − Jury Trial set for 1/22/2013 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1, Robert V. Denney Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE before Judge John M. Gerrard. Pretrial Conference set for 1/8/2013 at 11:00 AM by Webex Conferencing before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. An email will be sent to counsel of record with the instructions and codes for participating in the pretrial conference by Webex. Telephone Conference set for 8/30/2012 at 10:00 AM by telephone before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. Plaintiff's counsel shall initiate the telephone call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (DMS) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
18 NOTIFICATION of Request for Video Recording by Clerk.(CCB) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
19 NOTICE of Intent to Serve Subpoenas Duces Tecum by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Subpoenas)(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
20 Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Protective Order)(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
21 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Protective Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
22 TEXT NOTICE REGARDING PROPOSED ORDER 20 by Deputy Clerk. Pursuant to NECivR 7.0.2, a moving party shall submit a proposed order to the judge. Electronically submitted proposed orders may not be combined with the motion into one document. The proposed order should be e−mailed in a word−processing format to the assigned judge. This notice is for your information for future filings.(TCL ) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
23 Unopposed MOTION Release of Discoverable Materials Otherwise Protected by FERPA and Other Federal or State Law by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
24 Joint STIPULATION to Amend Expert Disclosure Deadlines by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
25 TEXT ORDER granting 24 Stipulation to extend the expert disclosure deadlines. 1) Plaintiff shall disclose all expert witnesses and shall provide the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2) by no later than July 6, 2012; (2) Defendants shall disclose all expert witnesses and shall provide the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2) by no later than August 3, 2012; and (3) Plaintiff shall disclose all rebuttal expert witnesses and shall provide the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2) by no later than August 17, 2011. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 05/17/2012)
26 ORDER granting 23 Motion Authorizing Release of FERPA Records. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (DMS) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 7 of 30

05/21/2012 06/27/2012 06/27/2012
08/13/2012 08/24/2012 08/30/2012 09/25/2012 09/26/2012
10/15/2012 10/15/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012

27 Certificate of Service of Written Objections to Defendants' Notice of Third−Party Subpoenas by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
28 Joint MOTION to Amend Order Setting Schedule for Progression of a Civil Case,, 17 by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
29 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO AMEND THE PROGRESSION ORDER − The trial of this case is set to commence before the Honorable John M. Gerrard, in Courtroom 1, United States Courthouse, Lincoln, Nebraska at 9:00 a.m. on June 17, 2013, or as soon thereafter as the case may be called, for a duration of four (4) trial days. This case is subject to the prior trial of criminal cases and such other civil cases as may be scheduled for trial before this one. Jury selection will be held at commencement of trial. The Pretrial Conference is scheduled to be held before the undersigned magistrate judge on June 6, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., and will be conducted by WebEx conferencing. To facilitate this conferencing method, the parties' proposed Pretrial Conference Order and Exhibit List(s) must be emailed to zwart@ned.uscourts.gov, in either Word Perfect or Word format, by 5:00 p.m. on June 5, 2013. An email will be sent to counsel of record with the instructions and codes for participating in the pretrial conference by WebEx. A telephonic conference with the undersigned magistrate judge remains set to be held on August 30, 2012 10:00 a.m. to discuss the status of case progression and potential settlement. Counsel for plaintiff shall place the call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (TCL ) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
30 Certificate of Service of Written Objections to Defendants' Notice of Third−Party Subpoenas by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
31 Certificate of Service by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
32 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER setting scheduling regarding summary judgment motions and briefing on the issue of whether the Fair Housing Act is applicable to university housing for college students. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
33 Unopposed MOTION to Extend Deadlines to File Motions for Summary Judgment by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
34 TEXT ORDER granting 33 Motion to Extend. The deadline (see, Filing No. 32 ) for filing summary judgment motions and briefing on the issue of whether the Fair Housing Act is applicable to university housing for college students is extended to November 6, 2012. Any response or reply to these summary judgment motions shall be filed in accordance with the deadlines set under the Local Rules of this court. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
35 Joint STIPULATION to Extend Expert Deadlines by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
36 ORDER granting 35 Stipulation regarding extending the expert disclosure deadlines. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
37 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
38 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Index of Evidence and Supporting Declarations and Exhibits regarding MOTION for Summary Judgment 37 ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 8 of 30

11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012
11/06/2012 11/06/2012
11/06/2012
11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/30/2012

Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Foundational Declaration of Scott P. Moore, # 2 Exhibit A1 − Declaration of Charles Anthony Earls, # 3 Exhibit A2 − Student Accommodation Documents)(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
39 BRIEF in support of MOTION for Summary Judgment 37 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
40 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Whether the Fair Housing Act Covers Universities by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
41 BRIEF in support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Whether the Fair Housing Act Covers Universities 40 by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
42 INDEX in support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Whether the Fair Housing Act Covers Universities 40 by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
43 AFFIDAVIT of A. Hung regarding Index 42 by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
44 AFFIDAVIT of A. Hung with Exhibits regarding Index 42 by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Nos. 8−9, # 2 Exhibit Nos. 11−12, # 3 Exhibit Nos. 14−15, # 4 Exhibit Nos. 17, # 5 Exhibit Nos. 23−25)(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
45 AFFIDAVIT of A. Hung & Ex. 4 regarding Index 42 by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit No. 4)(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
46 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT A. Hung Decl. Exhibits 18−22 regarding MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Whether the Fair Housing Act Covers Universities 40 ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Nos. 18−22)(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
47 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Declaration of D. Kraft regarding MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Whether the Fair Housing Act Covers Universities 40 ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
48 AFFIDAVIT of A. Hung & Ex. No. 6 regarding Index 42 by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit No. 6)(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
49 AFFIDAVIT of A. Hung and Exs 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 16 regarding Index 42 by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Nos. 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 16)(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
50 MOTION for Hearing regarding MOTION for Summary Judgment 37 , MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Whether the Fair Housing Act Covers Universities 40 (Motion for Oral Argument) by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 9 of 30

11/30/2012 11/30/2012
11/30/2012 11/30/2012 12/04/2012 12/07/2012 12/07/2012
12/12/2012 12/12/2012 12/12/2012 12/13/2012

51 BRIEF in opposition to MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Whether the Fair Housing Act Covers Universities 40 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
52 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Index of Evidence in Opposition to regarding MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Whether the Fair Housing Act Covers Universities 40 ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of Scott P. Moore, # 2 Exhibit A1)(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
53 BRIEF in opposition to MOTION for Summary Judgment 37 on Whether the FHA Covers Universities and Colleges by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
54 INDEX in opposition to MOTION for Summary Judgment 37 on Whether the FHA Covers Universities and Colleges by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of M. Howard with Exs. A−B)(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
55 NOTICE of Appearance by Attorney Anthony D. Todero on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Todero, Anthony) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
56 Joint MOTION to Amend Order on Motion to Amend,,,,, 29 by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
57 ORDER granting 56 Motion to Amend Progression Order. Trial will commence before the Honorable John M. Gerrard, in Courtroom 1, United States Courthouse, Lincoln, Nebraska at 9:00 a.m. on October 15, 2013. Pretrial Conference is scheduled before Judge Zwart on September 30, 2013 by WebEx. An email will be sent to counsel of record with the instructions and codes for participating in the pretrial conference by WebEx. The telephonic status conference is set for January 15, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Zwart. Plaintiff's counsel shall initiate the call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (DMS) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
58 STRICKEN − MOTION for Protective Order by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) Modified on 12/13/2012 to strike pursuant text order 61 (GJG). (Entered: 12/12/2012)
59 BRIEF in support of MOTION for Protective Order 58 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
60 INDEX in support of MOTION for Protective Order 58 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − A9)(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
61 TEXT STRIKE ORDER that Pursuant to NEGenR 1.3(a)(4), the Motion for Protective Order 58 is stricken for the following reason(s): the document is a duplicate of document number 59 . The party is directed to re−file the document. Ordered by Deputy Clerk. (GJG) (Entered: 12/13/2012)

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 10 of 30

12/13/2012 12/27/2012 12/27/2012 01/07/2013
01/07/2013
01/18/2013
02/04/2013 02/04/2013 02/04/2013 02/19/2013
02/19/2013 04/03/2013 04/04/2013

62 MOTION for Protective Order by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
63 BRIEF in opposition to MOTION for Protective Order 62 by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
64 INDEX in opposition to MOTION for Protective Order 62 and Exs. 1−6 by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Mary J. Hahn, # 2 Exhibit Nos. 1−6)(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
65 REPLY BRIEF in support of MOTION for Protective Order 62 Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.26(c) by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
66 INDEX in support of MOTION for Protective Order 62 , Reply Brief, 65 Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.26(c) by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Foundational Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A1 − Declaration of Scott P. Moore)(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
67 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding: MOTION for Protective Order 62 . On or before February 4, 2013, the parties shall file their respective briefs on the issues identified in this memorandum and order. Any responsive briefs shall be filed on or before February 19, 2013. The motion for protective order will be deemed fully submitted on February 20, 2013. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (MKR) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
68 NOTICE of Appearance by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
69 BRIEF in support of MOTION for Protective Order 62 , Memorandum and Order, 67 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
70 BRIEF in opposition to MOTION for Protective Order 62 and Memorandum and Order 67 by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
71 BRIEF in support of Motion for Protective Order and In Response to Court's Memorandum and Order (filing No. 67) by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
72 BRIEF in opposition to MOTION for Protective Order 62 and in Response to Memorandum and Order 67 by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
73 Joint MOTION to Amend Progression Order by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
74 ORDER granting 73 Motion to Amend the Progression Order. Trial will commence before the Honorable John M. Gerrard, in Courtroom 1, United States Courthouse, Lincoln, Nebraska, at 9:00 a.m. on February 10, 2014. The Pretrial Conference is scheduled to be held before the undersigned magistrate judge on January 28, 2014 at 11:00 a.m., and will be conducted by WebEx conferencing. An email will be sent to counsel of record with the instructions and codes for participating in the pretrial conference by WebEx. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (DMS) (Entered: 04/04/2013)

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 11 of 30

04/05/2013
04/05/2013 04/15/2013 04/17/2013 04/17/2013 04/19/2013 05/15/2013
06/12/2013 06/12/2013 06/19/2013

75 ORDER − The defendants' Motion for Oral Argument on Motion for Summary Judgment (filing 50 ) is granted. A hearing is set before the undersigned judge in Courtroom 1, Robert V. Denney Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, Nebraska, commencing at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, April 17, 2013, on the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (filing 37 ) and the plaintiff's cross−motion for partial summary judgment (filing 40 ). Each side shall have 15 minutes to argue, divided among counsel for each side as they choose. The plaintiff's counsel shall argue first, and may reserve time for a brief rebuttal. The parties are required to complete Form E, "Party Response to Request for Video Recording," and e−mail it to cameraspilot@ned.uscourts.gov as soon as practicable. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (AOA) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
76 NOTIFICATION of Request for Video Recording by Clerk.(CCB) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
77 PARTY RESPONSE to Request for Video Recording (All Parties Consent)(CCB) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
78 TEXT MINUTE ENTRY Hearing held on cross motions for summary judgment 37 40 before Judge John M. Gerrard in Lincoln on 4/17/13. Oral argument made by parties. Court takes judicial notice of index of evidence filed by plaintiff and defendants. Case submitted. Order forthcoming. Appearances for Plaintiff: Mary Hahn and Laurie Kelly; for Defendants: Scott Moore and Alison Basye; Courtroom Deputy: Colleen Beran; Court Reporter: Digital Recording. Time Start: 10:00 a.m.; Time Stop: 10:32 a.m.; Time in Court: 32 Minutes. (CCB) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
79 AUDIO FILE. Court Date & Time [ 04/17/2013 9:49:08 AM ]. File Size [ 8746 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:36:26 ]. (Motion Hearing). (auto−docket). (Entered: 04/17/2013)
80 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER − IT IS ORDERED: The Plaintiff United States of America's Cross−Motion For Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of the Fair Housing Act's Application to Universities and Colleges (filing 40 ) is granted. UNK's Motion for Summary Judgment (filing 37 ) is denied. It is established, for purposes of this case, that UNK"s student housing facilities are "dwellings" within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (TCL ) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
81 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 62 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. 1) Third−party NACUA shall comply with the subpoena served on it by the plaintiff, but only to the extent the subpoena seeks documents, publications, or website materials that were circulated, distributed, or otherwise made readily available to the Defendants specifically, or to the NACUA membership as a whole, from January 1, 2007 until November 23, 2011. 2) To the extent the subpoena requests any other documents or publications, the motion for protective order is granted. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (JAB) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
82 REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 4/17/2013 before District Judge John M. Gerrard on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
83 LETTER BY CLERK that a CD was sent to Latimer Reporting for transcription regarding Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Motion Hearing,,,,,, 78 . Transcript ordered by Scott Moore. ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). (SCR, ) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
84 TRANSCRIPT (UNREDACTED) of cross−motions for summary judgment proceedings before District Judge John M. Gerrard held on 4−17−13. Total Number of Billable Pages: 26. Total Number of Pages: 26. The transcript can only be viewed at the courts public terminal or purchased through Transcriber Vicki Jarchow at (402) 476−1153 before the expiration of the Release of Transcript Restriction deadline. The parties have 5 business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 12 of 30

07/12/2013 07/17/2013
07/17/2013
07/17/2013 08/13/2013 08/16/2013 08/20/2013 09/03/2013 09/11/2013

Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Click here to view the Transcript Redaction Procedure. − Redaction Request due 7/10/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/22/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/17/2013. (Jarchow, Vicki) Modified on 9/18/2013 to remove restriction text (TCL ). (Entered: 06/19/2013)
85 Unopposed MOTION to Amend Order on Motion to Amend,, 74 the Progression Order by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
86 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 85 Motion to Amend. The jury trial of this case is set to commence before John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 1, United States Courthouse, Lincoln, Nebraska, at 9:00 a.m. on May 13, 2014. The Pretrial Conference is scheduled to be held before the undersigned magistrate judge on April 29, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., and will be conducted by WebEx conferencing. A telephonic conference with the undersigned magistrate judge will be held on January 14, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss the status of case progression and potential settlement. Counsel for plaintiff shall place the call. The parties are hereby notified that no further continuances will be granted absent a substantial threshold showing of good cause. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (TCL ) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
87 STRICKEN − ORDER granting 85 Motion to Amend Progression Order. The jury trial is set for May 13, 2014 before U.S. Distruct Judge John M. Gerrard in Courtroom 1, United States Courthouse, Lincoln, NE at 9:00 a.m. The pretrial conference is scheduled for April 29, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Zwart and will be conducted by WebEx conferencing. An email will be sent to counsel of record with the instructions and codes for participating in the pretrial conference by WebEx. A telephonic conference with Magistrate Judge Zwart will be held on January 14, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss the status of case progression and potentional settlement. Counsel for plaintiff shall place the call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (DMS) Modified on 7/17/2013 to add "stricken" text pursuant to Order 88 . (JAB) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
88 TEXT STRIKE ORDER that Pursuant to NEGenR 1.3(a)(4), the Order on Motion to Amend 87 is stricken for the following reason: the document is a duplicate of document number 86 . Ordered by Deputy Clerk. (JAB) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
89 TEXT ORDER SETTING HEARING: At Counsels' request, a Planning Conference is set for 8/19/2013 at 01:30 PM by telephone before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. Counsel for Plaintiff shall place the call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (DMS) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
90 STATUS REPORT on Discovery and Electronically Stored Information by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
91 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER − IT IS ORDERED: 1) Discovery is stayed pending the outcome of a settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge. 2) A telephonic conference to discuss the scheduling of the settlement conference will be held on September 3, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. (CDT). Counsel for the plaintiff shall place the call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (TCL ) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
92 ORDER SETTING Settlement Conference for 9/10/2013 at 9:30 AM Courtroom 1 (Special Proceedings), Roman L. Hruska Federal Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plz, Omaha, NE before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
93 TEXT ORDER: The parties are still exploring options for settlement. Accordingly, 1) The progession deadlines in this case are stayed pending further order of the court. 2) On or before September 25, 2013, the parties shall contact my chambers to set a conference call to discuss the status of their settlement discussions, and either the scheduling of an additional settlement conference or, in the alternative, their proposed deadlines for further progression of this case to trial. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 09/11/2013)

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 13 of 30

11/18/2013 11/25/2013
12/17/2013
01/10/2014 01/10/2014
01/10/2014
01/10/2014 03/31/2014 03/31/2014 05/19/2014 05/19/2014 05/19/2014

94 TEXT ORDER SETTING HEARING: At the Court's request, the Telephone Conference is set for 11/25/2013 at 02:00 PM (CST) before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. The Court will email all parties with the call−in conference information. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (DMS) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
95 TEXT ORDER SETTING HEARING: A Status Conference will be held before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart on December 17, 2013 at 09:00 AM (C.S.T.) by telephone to discuss the status of their settlement discussions, and either the scheduling of an additional settlement conference or, in the alternative, their proposed deadlines for further progression of this case to trial. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
96 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER − IT IS ORDERED: A telephonic conference with the undersigned magistrate judge will be held on the record on January 10, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. to discuss: 1) Whether all reasonable attempts at settlement have been exhausted and a progression schedule to trial should be entered; and 2) If the parties believe further efforts at settlement are warranted: a. What representatives of the United States, by name and department, must be present at a settlement conference to fully address the parties' ongoing issues; b. Whether those representatives commit to being present at a settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge if the conference is conducted in Washington, D.C. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (TCL ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
97 TEXT NOTICE of Hearing regarding Memorandum and Order 96 . In Court Hearing set for 1/10/2014 08:30 AM by telephone before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (JAB) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
98 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the final progression order is as follows: Depositions due 10/1/2014. Jury Trial set for 2/9/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1, Robert V. Denney Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE before Judge John M. Gerrard. Pretrial Conference set for 1/27/2015 at 10:00 AM by WebEx before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. An email will be sent to counsel of record with the instructions and codes for participating in the pretrial conference by WebEx.Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (TCL, ) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
99 TEXT MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart in Lincoln on 1/10/20134. Telephonic Status Conference held. (Audio started 5 minutes late.) Case progression discussed. Order entered. Courtroom Deputy: Jeri A. Bierbower. Reporter: Digital Recorder. Appearance for Plaintiff: Mary Hahn, Colleen Melody and Laurie Kelly; For Defendants: Scott Moore and Alison Basye, retained. Time Start: 8:33 AM; Time Stop: 9:21 AM; Time in Court: 48 Minutes. (JAB) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
100 AUDIO FILE. Court Date & Time [ 01/10/2014 8:37:58 AM ]. File Size [ 10281 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:42:50 ]. (Status hearing). (auto−docket). (Entered: 01/10/2014)
101 Joint MOTION to Extend Deadlines by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
102 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER − IT IS ORDERED: The parties' joint motion to continue, (Filing No. 101 ), is granted, and the progression order is modified as stated. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (TCL ) Modified on 4/1/2014 to correct typo(TCL ). (Entered: 04/01/2014)
103 MOTION to Compel Electronically Stored Information and to Amend the Progression Order by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
104 BRIEF in support of MOTION to Compel Electronically Stored Information and to Amend the Progression Order 103 by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
105 INDEX in support of MOTION to Compel Electronically Stored Information and to Amend the Progression Order 103 by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 14 of 30

05/19/2014
05/27/2014 05/27/2014 06/04/2014 06/05/2014
06/05/2014 06/06/2014 06/09/2014

Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Mary J. Hahn, # 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)(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
106 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Portions of Exhibit 11 regarding MOTION to Compel Electronically Stored Information and to Amend the Progression Order 103 ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
107 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Attorney Mary J. Hahn on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Hahn, Mary) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
108 ORDER granting 107 Motion to Withdraw Mary J. Hahn as Attorney for plaintiff. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (ADB) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
109 NOTICE of Appearance by Attorney Norrinda B. Hayat on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Hayat, Norrinda) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
110 Unopposed MOTION to Extend Deadline to File Brief in Opposition to MOTION to Compel Electronically Stored Information and to Amend the Progression Order 103 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
111 TEXT ORDER granting 110 Motion to Extend. Defendants' brief in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 103 shall be filed on or before June 9, 2014. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
112 Certificate of Service by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
113 BRIEF in opposition to MOTION to Compel Electronically Stored Information and to Amend the Progression Order 103 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 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,

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 15 of 30

06/09/2014 06/19/2014 06/19/2014 06/19/2014
06/19/2014 06/19/2014 07/01/2014
07/10/2014 08/25/2014 08/26/2014 08/27/2014
08/27/2014 08/28/2014
11/07/2014

# 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15)(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
114 RESPONSE regarding Order on Motion to Extend, 102 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
115 MOTION to Strike Portions of Filing by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
116 BRIEF in support of MOTION to Strike Portions of Filing 115 by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit C. Melody)(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
117 REPLY BRIEF in support of MOTION to Compel Electronically Stored Information and to Amend the Progression Order 103 by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
118 ORDER on Plaintiff's motion to strike and setting briefing schedule. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
119 BRIEF (redacted version of 113 ) in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 103 . (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
120 BRIEF in opposition to MOTION to Strike Portions of Filing 115 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
121 REPLY BRIEF in support of MOTION to Strike Portions of Filing 115 by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
122 ORDER denying 103 Motion to Compel; denying as moot 115 Motion to Strike Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
123 Joint MOTION Extend Protective Order to NACUA regarding Order on Motion for Protective Order 21 by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
124 ORDER granting 123 Motion Extend Protective Order to NACUA. The court's previously entered protective order, (Filing No. 21), is extended to materials produced by NACUA in response to the United States' third−party subpoena. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Copies emailed and mailed as directed) (ADB) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
125 Joint MOTION to Extend Progression Order Deadlines by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
126 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 125 Motion to Extend. Jury Trial set for 5/26/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1, Robert V. Denney Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE before Judge John M. Gerrard. Pretrial Conference set for 5/12/2015 at 11:00 AM by WebEx before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. The deposition deadline is February 18, 2015. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (ADB) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
127 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Denise Kraft by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 16 of 30

11/07/2014 11/07/2014 11/10/2014 11/14/2014 11/17/2014 11/18/2014 11/19/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014
12/02/2014 12/05/2014 12/08/2014 12/08/2014 12/11/2014

128 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Brittany Hamilton by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
129 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Brittany Hamilton (Amended) by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
130 NOTICE of Appearance by Attorney Onjil T. McEachin on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (McEachin, Onjil) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
131 NOTICE of Serving Defendants' Privilege Log upon Plaintiff by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
132 NOTICE of Appearance by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
133 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Brittany Hamilton (Amended) by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
134 NOTICE of Intent to Serve Subpoena Duces Tecum by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
135 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
136 BRIEF in support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability 135 by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
137 INDEX in support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability 135 by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Colleen M. Melody, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8)(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
138 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Cheryl Bressington by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
139 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Cheryl Bressington Amended Notice by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
140 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Attorney Colleen M. Melody on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Melody, Colleen) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
141 ORDER − The motion to permit Colleen M. Melody to withdraw as counsel on behalf of the United States, (filing no. 140 ), is granted. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (JAB) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
142 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Gail Zeller by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 17 of 30

12/11/2014 12/11/2014 12/15/2014
12/15/2014 12/15/2014 12/15/2014 12/15/2014
12/17/2014 01/09/2015 01/09/2015
01/12/2015

143 Certificate of Service for United States' First Supplemental Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
144 Certificate of Service for United States' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
145 Unopposed MOTION to Extend Deadline to File Brief in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiff to File Reply Brief by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
146 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jill Phelps by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
147 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Ziah Zawaideh by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
148 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Matthew Felber by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
149 TEXT ORDER granting 145 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Deadline to File Brief in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiff to File Reply Brief. The defendants' motion is granted. The defendants may respond to the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment 135 on or before January 12, 2015. The plaintiffs may reply in support of their motion on or before February 6, 2015. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
150 NOTICE United States' Designation of Expert Witness by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
151 JOINT MOTION to Amend the Progression Order (ECF no. 126) by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) Modified on 1/9/2015 to change event (Zwart, Cheryl). (Entered: 01/09/2015)
152 ORDER granting 151 Motion to Continue Jury Trial set for 7/13/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1, Robert V. Denney Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE before Judge John M. Gerrard. Pretrial Conference set for 6/30/2015 at 01:00 PM by WebEx before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
153 BRIEF in opposition to MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability 135 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A1, # 3 Exhibit A2, # 4 Exhibit A3, # 5 Exhibit A4, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit B1, # 8 Exhibit B2, # 9 Exhibit B3, # 10 Exhibit B4, # 11 Exhibit C, # 12 Exhibit C1, # 13 Exhibit C2, # 14 Exhibit D,

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 18 of 30

01/16/2015 01/16/2015 01/21/2015 01/21/2015 01/29/2015 01/29/2015 02/02/2015
02/02/2015 02/02/2015 02/06/2015 02/06/2015
02/09/2015

# 15 Exhibit D1, # 16 Exhibit E)(Moore, Scott) ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). Modified on 1/29/2015 to restrict (MLF, ). (Entered: 01/12/2015)
154 Certificate of Service by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
155 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Designee by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
156 Certificate of Service by Attorney Allison D. Balus on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Balus, Allison) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
157 OBJECTION to Notice to Take Deposition 155 and Designations by Attorney Allison D. Balus on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Balus, Allison) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
158 JOINT MOTION to Amend Progression Order (ECF 126) as to Motions to Compel by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
159 TEXT ORDER granting 158 Motion to Amend. The deadline for filing motions to compel Rule 33 through 36 discovery is extended to February 28, 2015. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
160 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to Replace and File Supplement Exhibits in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Attorney Allison D. Balus on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F, # 2 Exhibit F1, # 3 Exhibit F2)(Balus, Allison) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
161 TEXT ORDER granting 160 Motion for Leave. The defendants' Unopposed Motion for Leave to Replace and File Supplement Exhibits in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
162 Certificate of Service for United States' Expert Rebuttal Report by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
163 REPLY BRIEF in support of the United States' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
164 INDEX in support of Plaintiff United States' Reply on United States' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Colleen Melody, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Christopher Hayes, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Willie Chinguangco, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Elise Shore and Ex. A, # 5 Exhibit Exs. B−D)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
165 Certificate of Service by Attorney Allison D. Balus on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Balus, Allison) (Entered:

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 19 of 30

02/10/2015 02/10/2015 02/11/2015 02/11/2015 02/11/2015 02/11/2015 02/12/2015 02/13/2015
02/13/2015
02/17/2015 02/19/2015 02/20/2015 02/20/2015 02/24/2015 02/24/2015 02/25/2015 02/25/2015 03/03/2015

02/09/2015)
166 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Lee McQueen by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
167 NOTICE to Take Deposition of David Luker by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
168 NOTICE to Take Deposition of LeAnn Obrecht by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
169 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Linda Shaw by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
170 NOTICE to Take Deposition of David Brandt by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
171 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Tony Earls by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
172 NOTICE to Take Deposition of David Brandt Amended Notice by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
173 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply Brief by Attorney Allison D. Balus on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit G, # 3 Exhibit H, # 4 Exhibit I)(Balus, Allison) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
174 TEXT ORDER granting 173 Motion For Leave to File Sur−Reply Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability and Alternative Request for Oral Argument. The defendants' motion is granted. No further briefing will be necessary. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
175 Certificate of Service for Plaintiff United States' Responses to Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
176 NOTICE of Appearance & Notice of Substitution of Counsel by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
177 NOTICE of Deposition of Rosalind Sheldon by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
178 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Linda Shaw by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
179 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Tony Earls Amended Notice by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
180 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Christy Horn by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
181 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Rosalind Sheldon Amended Notice by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
182 NOTICE to Take Deposition of University of Nebraska under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) Supplemental Notice by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
183 OBJECTION (Supplemental) and Designations in Response to Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Notice and Supplemental Notice of Deposition by Attorney Scott P. Moore on

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 20 of 30

03/06/2015 03/06/2015
03/06/2015
03/06/2015 03/09/2015 03/17/2015 03/17/2015 03/18/2015 03/18/2015
03/18/2015 03/18/2015 03/20/2015

behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
184 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
185 RESTRICTED MOTION Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
186 RESTRICTED BRIEF in support of RESTRICTED MOTION Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − 185 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 iso Brief iso Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit 2 iso Brief iso Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 3 Exhibit 3 iso Brief iso Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 4 Exhibit 4 iso Brief iso Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 5 Exhibit 5 iso Brief iso Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment)(Moore, Scott) Modified on 3/6/2015 per attorney's request, document is restricted and text modified accordingly (NMW). (Entered: 03/06/2015)
187 TEXT ORDER granting 184 Motion to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
188 Certificate of Service for United States' Amended Responses to Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
189 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Betty Bottiger by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
190 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Kellie Paris Asaka by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
191 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
192 TEXT ORDER granting 191 Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The plaintiff's motion is granted. The plaintiff may respond to 185 Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on or before April 10, 2015. The defendants may reply in support of their motion on or before April 20, 2015. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
193 JOINT MOTION to Amend Progression Order (ECF 152) by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
194 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 193 Motion to Amend. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
195 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Kellie Paris Asaka (Amended) by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 21 of 30

03/23/2015 03/23/2015 03/23/2015 03/23/2015 03/24/2015 03/24/2015 03/24/2015 03/24/2015
03/24/2015
03/27/2015 03/30/2015 03/31/2015

L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
196 NOTICE to Take Deposition of James A. Serpell by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
197 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Mark J. Diercks, M.D. by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
198 NOTICE to Take Deposition of James A. Serpell Amended by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
199 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Mark J. Diercks, M.D. (Amended) by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
200 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Designated Agent(s) of Plaintiff by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendant University of Nebraska at Kearney (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
201 MOTION to Compel Deposition of Defendants' Designated 30(b)(6) Witness Cheryl Bressington by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
202 BRIEF in support of MOTION to Compel Deposition of Defendants' Designated 30(b)(6) Witness Cheryl Bressington 201 by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
203 INDEX in support of MOTION to Compel Deposition of Defendants' Designated 30(b)(6) Witness Cheryl Bressington 201 by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Declaration of Elise Sandra Shore, # 2 Exhibit 1A Oct 29, 2014 (with attachment), # 3 Exhibit 1B Dec 10, 2014 email (with attachment), # 4 Exhibit 1C Dec 19 2014 email (with attachment), # 5 Exhibit 1D Dec 31, 2014 letter)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
204 INDEX in support of MOTION to Compel Deposition of Defendants' Designated 30(b)(6) Witness Cheryl Bressington 201 by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1E Excerpts from Jan 6, 2015 Dep of Cheryl Bressington, # 2 Exhibit 1F Excerpts from Jan 22, 2015 Deposition of Mary Chinnock Petroski, # 3 Exhibit 1G Feb 11, 2015 letter, # 4 Exhibit 1H Feb. 23, 2015 email, # 5 Exhibit 1I March 3, 2015 letter, # 6 Exhibit 1J March 9 & March 11 emails)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
205 JOINT MOTION to Extend Deadlines by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
206 NOTICE to Take Deposition of James A. Serpell Second Amended by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
207 ORDER granting 205 Motion to Extend. Jury Trial set for 9/8/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1, Robert V. Denney Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE before Judge John M. Gerrard. Pretrial Conference set for 8/25/2015 at 11:00 AM by WebEx before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. No further extensions will be granted absent a substantial showing of good cause. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 03/31/2015)

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 22 of 30

04/08/2015 04/10/2015
04/10/2015 04/10/2015
04/10/2015
04/10/2015
04/13/2015 04/14/2015 04/17/2015

208 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
209 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Plaintiff United States' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding RESTRICTED MOTION Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − 185 ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
210 TEXT ORDER granting 208 Motion to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
211 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Plaintiff United States' Index of Evidence in Support of its Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Declaration of Elise Sandra Shore, # 2 Exhibit 1A Dep. of Brittany Hamilton, # 3 Exhibit 1B Excerpts from Dep of Jill Phelps)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
212 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Plaintiff United States' Index of Evidence in Support of its Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with attached exhibits 1C, 1D & 1E ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1C, Excerpts from Dep of Linda Shaw, # 2 Exhibit 1D, Dep of Denise Kraft, # 3 Errata 1E, Exhibit from Dep of Kellie Asaka)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
213 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Plaintiff United States' Index and Exs. 1F −1J ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1F Excerpts from Psychiatric Report, # 2 Exhibit 1G Excerpts from Dep of Matthew Felber, # 3 Exhibit 1H Excerpts fro Dep of Rosalind Sheldon, # 4 Exhibit 1I, Excerpts from Dep of Christy Horn, # 5 Exhibit 1J, Excerpts from Dep of David Brandt)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
214 RESPONSE regarding MOTION to Compel Deposition of Defendants' Designated 30(b)(6) Witness Cheryl Bressington 201 (Joint) by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 04/13/2015)
215 TEXT ORDER. The parties have resolved their dispute over the 30(b)(6) Witness Cheryl Bressington. See filing 214 . As such, the government's motion to compel, 201 , is denied as moot. The court sincerely appreciates the parties' professionalism and efforts to resolve this discovery issue without court intervention. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
217 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Extend Deadline to File Reply Brief by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 23 of 30

04/17/2015 04/17/2015 04/17/2015 04/21/2015 04/29/2015 04/29/2015
04/29/2015
04/30/2015 04/30/2015 05/01/2015 05/04/2015 05/04/2015 05/06/2015

Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
218 TEXT ORDER granting 217 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Deadline to File Reply Brief. The defendants' motion is granted. The defendants may reply in support of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 185 on or before April 30, 2015. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
219 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Alisha Hanshaw by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
220 NOTICE to Take Deposition of University of Nebraska under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) Amended Supplemental Notice by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
221 OBJECTION to Notice to Take Deposition 200 Plaintiff United States' Objections and Designations to Defendants' Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition of Plaintiff United States by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 04/21/2015)
222 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to Seek Alternative Method of Service by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
223 BRIEF in support of UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to Seek Alternative Method of Service 222 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 iso Brief iso Defendants' Unopposed Motion Seeking Alternative Method of Service)(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
224 TEXT ORDER granting 222 Motion for Leave. The defendants are hereby authorized to serve their Rule 45 deposition subpoena of Tammy Hamilton−Iverson by leaving it in Hamilton−Iverson's personal residence mailbox or delivering it to another individual of suitable age and discretion who resides in Hamilton−Iverson's household. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
225 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Extend Deadline to File Reply Brief by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
226 TEXT ORDER granting 225 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Deadline to File Reply Brief. The defendants' motion is granted. The defendants may file a reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment 185 on or before May 8, 2015. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
227 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Alisha Hanshaw Amended by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
228 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Designee Cheryl Bressington Second Amended Notice by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Shore, Elise) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
229 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Betty Bottiger (Amended) by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
231 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Filing No. 230) by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 24 of 30

05/06/2015 05/06/2015 05/06/2015 05/08/2015 05/29/2015 05/29/2015
05/29/2015 05/29/2015
05/29/2015

232 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Betty Bottiger (Amended) by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Moore, Scott) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
233 NOTICE to Take Deposition of LeAnn Obrecht (Amended) by Attorney Onjil T. McEachin on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (McEachin, Onjil) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
234 TEXT ORDER granting 231 Motion to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
235 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Exhibit to Index of Evidence In Support of US Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 1E− Excerpts of March 25, 2015 Dep of Kellie Paris Asaka)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 05/08/2015)
236 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony and Report of James Serpell by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
237 INDEX in support of Plaintiff United States' Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony and Report of James Serpell by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Declaration of Alan A. Martinson, # 2 Exhibit 1A, Expert Report of James Serpell, # 3 Exhibit 1B, April 1, 2015 Dep. of James Serpell, # 4 Exhibit 1C, Exh. 324 from the April 1, 2015 Dep. of James Serpell)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
238 BRIEF in support of Plaintiff United States' Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony and Report of James Serpell by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
239 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT MOTION for Summary Judgment by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a) (Moore, Scott) Modified on 5/31/2015 to restrict per 244 (DCD). (Entered: 05/29/2015)
240 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT BRIEF in support of MOTION for Summary Judgment 239 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A1, # 3 Exhibit A2, # 4 Exhibit A3, # 5 Exhibit A4, # 6 Exhibit A5, # 7 Exhibit A6, # 8 Exhibit A7, # 9 Exhibit A8, # 10 Exhibit A9, # 11 Exhibit A10, # 12 Exhibit A11, # 13 Exhibit A12, # 14 Exhibit A13, # 15 Exhibit A14, # 16 Exhibit A15, # 17 Exhibit A16,

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 25 of 30

05/29/2015
05/29/2015
05/29/2015 05/31/2015 06/03/2015 06/03/2015 06/03/2015
06/04/2015

# 18 Exhibit A17, # 19 Exhibit A18, # 20 Exhibit A19, # 21 Exhibit A20, # 22 Exhibit A21, # 23 Exhibit A22, # 24 Exhibit A23, # 25 Exhibit A24, # 26 Exhibit A25, # 27 Exhibit B, # 28 Exhibit B1, # 29 Exhibit B2, # 30 Exhibit B3, # 31 Exhibit B4, # 32 Exhibit B5, # 33 Exhibit C)(Moore, Scott) Modified on 5/31/2015 to restrict per 244 (DCD). (Entered: 05/29/2015)
241 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Mark J. Diercks, M.D. by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a) (Moore, Scott) Modified on 5/31/2015 to restrict per 244 (DCD). (Entered: 05/29/2015)
242 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT BRIEF in support of MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Mark J. Diercks, M.D. 241 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A1, # 3 Exhibit A2)ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a) (Moore, Scott) Modified on 5/31/2015 to restrict per 244 (DCD). (Entered: 05/29/2015)
243 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
244 TEXT ORDER granting 243 Motion to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 05/31/2015)
245 MOTION to Extend Time for United States to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
246 BRIEF in support of Plaintiff United States' Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
247 INDEX in support of Plaintiff United States' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit 1, Declaration of Elise Sandra Shore, # 2 Exhibit 1A 6/02/2015 email from S. Moore to E. Shore, # 3 Exhibit 1B 6/03/2015 Email from S. Moore to E. Shore)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
248 TEXT ORDER granting in part 245 United States' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff's motion is granted in part. The plaintiff may respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment 239 on or before July 6, 2015. The defendants may reply in support of their motion on or before July 16, 2015. There will be no further extensions barring a

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 26 of 30

06/11/2015 06/19/2015
06/20/2015
06/26/2015 06/26/2015
06/26/2015 06/26/2015 06/26/2015 07/06/2015 07/06/2015
07/06/2015

substantial showing of good cause. The Court will decide the parties' pending motions on a timely basis and the trial date of September 8, 2015 remains firm. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
249 TEXT ORDER SETTING TRIAL: Upon notice from the parties that 4 days may not be sufficient, a 6−day jury trial is set for 9/8/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1, Robert V. Denney Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE before Judge John M. Gerrard. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
250 JOINT MOTION to Extend Briefing Deadlines Regarding MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony and Report of James Serpell 236 , MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Mark J. Diercks, M.D. 241 by Attorney Allison D. Balus on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Balus, Allison) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
251 TEXT ORDER granting 250 Joint Motion to Extend the Parties' Deadlines Regarding Daubert Motions. The parties' joint motion is granted. The parties' respective responses to one another's Daubert motions (filing nos. 236 and 241 ), which had been due on June 15, 2015, may be filed on or before June 26, 2015. The parties may reply in support of their respective motions on or before July 10, 2015. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 06/20/2015)
253 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
254 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Brief in Opposition regarding MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Mark J. Diercks, M.D. 241 ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
255 TEXT ORDER granting 253 Motion to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
256 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
257 ORDER granting 256 Motion to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act. The Clerk of the Court is directed to edit the document restrictions for filing 252 to restrict access to case participants. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (ADB) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
258 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
259 STRICKEN − RESPONSE United States' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). Modified on 7/7/2015 to provisionally restrict pending Judge approval. (JAB) Modified on 7/8/2015 to strike per 266 (DCD) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
260 INDEX in support of United States' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, Dec of Elise Sandra Shore, # 2 Exhibit 1A Brittany Hamilton Dep. with Attached Exs., # 3 Exhibit 1B Excerpts from David Brandt Dep., # 4 Exhibit 1C Excerpts from David Luker Dep.,

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 27 of 30

07/06/2015
07/06/2015
07/07/2015 07/07/2015 07/08/2015 07/08/2015 07/08/2015

# 5 Exhibit 1D Excerpts from Tammy Iversen Dep.)(Shore, Elise) ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). Modified on 7/7/2015 to provisionally restrict pending Judge approval. (JAB) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
261 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Index and Exhibits in Support of United States' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1E Excerpts from Jill Phelps Dep. with attached Exs., # 2 Exhibit 1F Excerpts from Charles Anthony Earls Dep. with attached Ex. Dep., # 3 Exhibit 1G Excerpts from Gail Zeller Dep., # 4 Exhibit 1H Excerpts from Linda Shaw Dep. with attached Exs., # 5 Exhibit 1I Denise Kraft Dep. with attached Exs.)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
262 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Index and Exhibits in Support of United States' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1J Exhbitis from Rosalind Sheldon Dep., # 2 Exhibit 1K Denise Kraft Dec., # 3 Exhibit 1L Excerpts from James Serpell Dep. and attached Exs., # 4 Exhibit 1M Excerpts from Matthew Felber Dep., # 5 Exhibit 1N Excerpts from Kellie Paris Asaka Dep., # 6 Exhibit 1O Ex. 315 from Mark Diercks Dep., # 7 Exhibit 1P. Excerpts from U.S. Disc. Resp., # 8 Exhibit 1Q Excerpts from Christy Horn Dep. with attached Exs., # 9 Exhibit 1R Exs from Cheryl Bressington Dep., # 10 Exhibit Exs from Mary Petroski Dep., # 11 Exhibit 2 Debora Crews Dec., # 12 Exhibit 2A UNK website page, # 13 Exhibit 2B UNK website page)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
263 TEXT ORDER granting 258 Motion to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
264 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Notice of Filing Amended Ex. to Index of Evidence in Support of the United States' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Ex 1I Denise Kraft Dep. with attached Exs.)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
265 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to Strike and Leave to Refile by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
266 TEXT ORDER granting 265 Plaintiff United States' Unopposed Motion to Strike and Motion for Leave to Refile. The plaintiff's brief 259 shall be stricken, and the plaintiff shall file its amended brief as soon as is practicable. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
267 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT United States' Amended Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 28 of 30

07/10/2015 07/10/2015 07/10/2015 07/10/2015 07/10/2015
07/10/2015 07/10/2015
07/10/2015 07/10/2015 07/14/2015 07/21/2015 07/21/2015

America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
268 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
269 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
270 REPLY BRIEF in support of MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony and Report of James Serpell 236 by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Martinson, Alan) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
271 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Extend Deadline to File Reply Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
272 INDEX in support of Reply Brief 270 by Attorney Alan A. Martinson on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 1A, # 3 Exhibit 1B, RESTRICTED, # 4 Exhibit 1C, RESTRICTED, # 5 Exhibit 1D, # 6 Exhibit 2)(Martinson, Alan) Modified on 7/10/2015 to restrict Exhibits 1B and 1C per counsel Alan Martinson (CCB). Modified on 7/10/2015 to restrict 3 and 4 (CCB). (Entered: 07/10/2015)
273 TEXT ORDER granting 268 Motion to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
274 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Reply Brief regarding MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Mark J. Diercks, M.D. 241 ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). − by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A1)(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
275 TEXT ORDER granting 271 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Deadline to File Reply Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants may file their reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment 239 on or before July 21, 2015. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
276 TEXT ORDER granting 269 Motion to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
277 NOTICE of Appearance by Attorney John C. Wiltse on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller (Wiltse, John) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
278 MOTION to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller.(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
279 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT Reply Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E−GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). −

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 29 of 30

07/21/2015 08/25/2015
08/25/2015
08/25/2015 08/25/2015 08/31/2015
09/03/2015 09/03/2015 09/03/2015 09/04/2015

by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Gail Zeller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A1, # 3 Exhibit A2, # 4 Exhibit A3, # 5 Exhibit A4, # 6 Exhibit A5)(Moore, Scott) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
280 TEXT ORDER granting 278 Motion to Restrict pursuant to the E−Government Act. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
282 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER − IT IS ORDERED: The plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability (filing 135) is denied. The defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (filing 185 ) is denied. The defendants' motion for summary judgment (filing 2 39 ) is granted in part, and in part denied, as set forth above. The plaintiff's claims as to David L. Brandt, Cheryl Bressington, Christy Horn, and Gail Zeller, in their individual capacities, are dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (TCL) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
283 TEXT MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart in Lincoln on 8/25/2015. Pretrial Conference held on the record by WebEx. Order forthcoming. Appearance for Plaintiff: Elise Shore, Onjil McEachin, and Alan Martinson by phone, Laurie Kelly in person; For Defendants: Scott Moore, Allison Balus, John Wiltse, and Alison Basye, in person. Courtroom Deputy: Jeri A. Bierbower. Reporter: Digital Recorder. Time Start: 11:00 AM; Time Stop: 12:13 PM; Time in Court: 1 Hour 13 Minutes. (JAB) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
284 AUDIO FILE. Court Date & Time [ 08/25/2015 11:13:15 AM ]. File Size [ 14286 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:59:31 ]. (Pretrial Conference). (auto−docket). (Entered: 08/25/2015)
285 PRETRIAL ORDER − estimated length of trial is 6 days; Jury Trial set for 9/8/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1, Robert V. Denney Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE before Judge John M. Gerrard. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
286 ORDER that the The Court has been advised that the parties in this case have settled their claims. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: This case is removed from the Court's trial calendar. The parties' pending evidentiary motions (filings 236 and 241) are denied as moot. On or before September 14, 2015, the parties shall file a joint stipulation for dismissal, or other dispositive stipulation, together with submitting to the undersigned judge a draft order which will fully dispose of the case. Absent compliance with this order, this case be dismissed without further notice. The Clerk of the Court shall set a dismissal papers deadline of September 14, 2015. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (ADB) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
287 JOINT MOTION To Approve and Enter Consent Order by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
288 INDEX in support of Joint Motion to Approve and Enter Consent Decree by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Proposed Consent Order)(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
289 JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL Voluntary Dismissal by Attorney Elise S. Shore on behalf of Plaintiff United States of America.(Shore, Elise) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
290 CONSENT ORDER granting 287 Motion To Approve and Enter Consent Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1, # 2 Exhibit A2, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D) Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (ADB) (Entered: 09/04/2015)

Case: 4:11-cv-3209 As of: 10/12/2015 07:37 AM CDT 30 of 30

09/04/2015

291 JUDGMENT: Upon the parties' 289 Stipulation for Dismissal and pursuant to the accompanying Consent Order, this case is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to be responsible for its own costs and attorney fees. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (ADB) (Entered: 09/04/2015)