Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 1 of 19

1

Thomas E. Perez

Assistant Attorney General

2

Steven H. Rosenbaum (NY Bar #1901958)

Jonathan M. Smith (DC Bar #396578)

3

R. Tamar Hagler (CA Bar #189441)

Christy E. Lopez (DC Bar #473612)

4

Eric W. Treene (NY Bar #2568343)

Lori K. Wagner (VA Bar #39446)

5

Sean R. Keveney (TX Bar #24033862)

Jessica C. Crockett (NY Bar #4694972)

6

Anika Gzifa (DC Bar #495394)

Matthew J. Donnelly (Ill Bar #6281308)

7

United States Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

8

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Northwestern Building, 7th Floor

9

Washington, D.C. 20530

Facsimile: (202) 514-1116

10

E-mail: lori.wagner@usdoj.gov

Phone: (202) 305-3107 11

Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America 12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

14

United States of America,

)

15

)

Plaintiff,

)

16

) Civil No.

v.

)

17

)

Town of Colorado City, Arizona;

) COMPLAINT

18

City of Hildale, Utah; Twin City Power;

)

and Twin City Water Authority, Inc.,

)

19

)

Defendants.

)

20

)

)

21

INTRODUCTION 22

23

1. This action is brought to enforce the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights

24

Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C.

25

§§ 3601 et seq; Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000b; and

26 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
27

28

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 2 of 19

1

2. The Town of Colorado City, Arizona (“Colorado City”), and the City of Hildale, Utah

2

(“Hildale”) (collectively, “Cities”), and two utility agencies under the Cities’ control

3

(collectively, “Defendants”) have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or

4 practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or

5

6

protected by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

7

Constitution and the laws of the United States.

8

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9 3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345
10 and 42 U.S.C. § 3614. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as a substantial part
11

12

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of Arizona.

13

NATURE OF ACTION

14 4. Defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of illegal discrimination against
15 individuals who are not members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of
16

17

Latter-day Saints (“FLDS”). The Cities’ public officials, the Colorado City/Hildale

18

Marshal’s Office (“the Marshal’s Office”),1 and utility entities have acted in concert

19

with FLDS leadership to deny non-FLDS2 individuals housing, police protection, and

20

21

access to public space and services. Furthermore, the Defendants have denied non-

22

1 The Marshal’s Office is a subdivision of the municipal governments of both Defendant

23

Colorado City and Defendant Hildale.

24

25

2 Throughout this Complaint, the term “non-FLDS” includes: 1. individuals who were never members of the FLDS; 2. individuals who were members of the FLDS but left the

26

Church; and 3. individuals who were told that they “lost priesthood,” were told to

“repent from a distance,” or were otherwise excommunicated by Warren Jeffs and/or his

27

followers.

28

2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 3 of 19

1

FLDS members access to housing in the Cities, and they have coerced, intimidated,

2

threatened, and interfered with the housing rights of non-FLDS members. The

3

Marshal’s Office has inappropriately used its state-granted law enforcement authority

4 to enforce the edicts of the FLDS, to the detriment of non-FLDS members. In addition,

5

6

the Cities’ officials have misdirected and misused public resources in the service of the

7

FLDS.

8

5. For at least 20 years, the Cities have operated as an arm of the FLDS, in violation of

9 the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
10

The Cities’ governments, including the Marshal’s Office, have been deployed to carry 11

12

out the will and dictates of FLDS leaders, particularly Warren Jeffs3 and the officials to

13

whom he delegates authority. For decades, officials of the Cities have, by operating at

14 the direction and for the benefit of the FLDS, abdicated their official duties to protect
15

16

the rights of all citizens equally and to administer governmental functions consistently

17

with the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

18

DEFENDANTS

19 6. Defendant Colorado City is a local unit of government organized under the laws of the

20

21

State of Arizona.

22 7. Defendant Hildale is a local unit of government organized under the laws of the State

23

of Utah.

24

25

3 On August 4, 2011, Jeffs was convicted of two counts of child sexual assault against a

26

twelve year-old girl and a fifteen year-old girl in San Angelo, Texas. He is now serving

a life plus twenty-year prison sentence. Jeffs remains the head of the FLDS while in

27

prison.

28

3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 4 of 19

1

8. Defendant Twin City Water Authority, Inc. (“TCWA”) is a non-profit corporation

2

organized under the laws of the State of Utah. It is responsible for the provision of

3

water services in Colorado City and Hildale. It operates under the actual or apparent

4 authority of Defendant Colorado City and Defendant Hildale.

5

6

9. Defendant Twin City Power is or was an intergovernmental entity of Defendant

7

Colorado City and Defendant Hildale. At all times relevant to this action until July

8

2009, it was responsible for the provision of electric power in Colorado City and

9 Hildale. It operated under the actual or apparent authority of Defendant Colorado City
10 and Defendant Hildale.
11

12

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

13

10. The adjoining communities of Colorado City and Hildale are populated primarily by

14 members of the FLDS who are followers of the self-proclaimed prophet Warren Jeffs.
15 Non-FLDS residents also live in the Cities, but they are a distinct minority.
16

17

11. Members of the FLDS traditionally contribute a significant portion of their money,

18

property, and time to a trust called the United Effort Plan Trust (“UEP Trust” or

19

“Trust”). The UEP Trust is a registered charitable trust in the State of Utah. Until

20

2005, the Trust was controlled by the FLDS Church. 21

22

12. Much of the land, and many of the improvements thereto, in Colorado City and

23

Hildale, including most of the Cities’ residences, belong to the UEP Trust. Residents

24

who live in Trust-owned homes typically have signed occupancy agreements with the

25

Trust. 26

27

13. In 2005, a Utah court determined that the UEP Trustees had violated their legal duties

28

in administering the Trust, including duties relating to former members of the FLDS

4

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 5 of 19

1

Church who are beneficiaries of the Trust. The court appointed Bruce Wisan, who is

2

not affiliated with the FLDS Church, as Special Fiduciary of the UEP Trust (“Special

3

Fiduciary”) to administer the Trust’s assets and operations.

4 14. In 2006, the court reformed the UEP Trust. Bruce Wisan continues to serve as the

5

6

court-appointed Special Fiduciary. The stated purpose of the Trust is “providing for

7

the just wants and needs of the beneficiaries which purpose is beneficial to the

8

community.”

9 ALLEGATIONS
10 15. Defendants have allowed the FLDS Church or its agents to direct or unlawfully
11

12

influence their actions regarding policing services, housing, and access to public

13

facilities, in violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Fair

14 Housing Act, and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
15 Unconstitutional Policing
16

17

16. The Marshal’s Office has failed to provide policing services to non-FLDS individuals

18

on the basis of religion. The Marshal’s Office fails to protect non-FLDS individuals

19

from victimization by FLDS members, fails to investigate crimes against non-FLDS

20

individuals and their property, and refuses to arrest FLDS individuals who have 21

22

committed crimes against non-FLDS individuals. These crimes and actions include

23

destroying crops on a non-FLDS-operated farm, vandalizing property in the control of

24

the UEP Trust, returning at least one underage bride to a home from which she had

25

fled, and trespassing on property occupied by non-FLDS individuals. 26

27

17. The Marshal’s Office selectively enforces laws and regulations against non-FLDS

28

individuals on the basis of religion. Instances of selective enforcement include

5

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 6 of 19

1

arresting non-FLDS individuals for trespass but not arresting similarly situated FLDS

2

individuals, and citing non-FLDS individuals for traffic violations but not citing FLDS

3

individuals for similar infractions.

4 18. Non-FLDS individuals experience the hardship and mental and physical stress

5

6

resulting from the knowledge that the Marshal’s Office will not come to their aid in

7

time of need. For example, in January 2012, a woman who was, in effect,

8

excommunicated by the FLDS, fled her home in the Cities with her six young

9 daughters after learning that FLDS leaders demanded that she sever all contact with
10 five of her six children. This woman believed, based on its policies and previous
11

12

actions, that the Marshal’s Office would not come to her assistance to protect her

13

parental rights if she complained about the FLDS edict separating mothers from their

14 children. She decided, as many other non-FLDS members have done, to flee with her
15 children under cover of darkness to safety outside of the Cities. The failure and refusal
16

17

of the Marshal’s Office to protect all citizens without regard to religion has given rise

18

to an “underground railroad,” composed of non-FLDS members who provide safe

19

havens and a means of egress for individuals abandoned by law enforcement.

20

19. The Marshal’s Office effectively serves as the enforcement arm of the FLDS Church. 21

22

Since at least 1990, the Marshal’s Office has assisted the FLDS Church in its

23

surveillance and investigation of non-FLDS members because of religion. This

24

activity includes providing training and resources to FLDS members to aid their

25

surveillance of non-FLDS members. The Marshal’s Office provides law-enforcement 26

27

information, including but not limited to, information about emergency calls to the

28

Marshal’s Office for assistance, directly to FLDS security personnel. In addition, the

6

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 7 of 19

1

Cities obtain information from FLDS Church security-service members about vehicles

2

traveling in the Cities, run license-plate checks to determine whether such vehicles are

3

owned and/or operated by non-FLDS members in the Cities, and convey the results of

4 the license-plate checks to the FLDS Church.

5

6

20. The Marshal’s Office has conducted traffic stops on multiple occasions in response to

7

FLDS church members’ requests that they find out the identity of the occupants of a

8

vehicle.

9 21. The Marshal’s Office deploys its resources to enforce FLDS religious edicts. Such
10 conduct includes dispatching Marshal’s Deputies in official vehicles to confront
11

12

persons about their alleged disobedience to FLDS rules and instructing such persons to

13

report to FLDS leadership.

14 22. In one instance, in 2000, Jeffs issued an order for a then-FLDS member to return an
15 underage bride, who had fled her new husband’s home, to FLDS leaders. Unaware that
16

17

the then-FLDS member had already complied, three Marshal’s Deputies confronted

18

him demanding that he return her to FLDS leaders. The Deputies drove official

19

Marshal’s Office vehicles when they aggressively confronted the then-FLDS member.

20

One of the Marshal’s Deputies involved in this incident remains employed by the 21

22

Marshal’s Office, and another was the Marshal who resigned in or around April 2012.

23

23. In 2001, Jeffs issued an edict that all domestic dogs would be banned from the Cities.

24

Less than one month later, in compliance with Jeffs’s edict, Marshal’s Deputies went to

25

each household in the Cities and asked residents to turn over any dogs that they had in 26

27

the home to the Officers. The Marshal’s Deputies then shot and killed the dogs in a

28

7

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 8 of 19

1

slaughter pit a short distance from the Cities. Two of the Marshal’s Deputies involved

2

in this incident remain employed by the Marshal’s Office.

3

24. The Marshal’s Office fails to cooperate with other law enforcement offices in

4 investigating crimes against non-FLDS individuals or crimes committed by FLDS

5

6

individuals. Since 2003, Arizona has decertified six officers employed by the

7

Marshal’s Office, and a seventh officer resigned after having been decertified by Utah

8

officials. Three were decertified for failure to comply with state law-enforcement

9 efforts, including refusing to testify at a grand jury proceeding.
10 25. In October 2005, Fred J. Barlow, during the time he served as Marshal, wrote a letter to
11

12

then-fugitive Jeffs, stating in relevant part,

13

I rejoice in the peace that comes over me when I follow the

14 directives that you have sent to me through [FLDS member] Uncle
15 William [Jessop]. I have felt a unity between the peace officers.
16

17

They have all stated to me their desire to follow the directives that

18

are placed before us. . . . I want to fill the position that you would

19

have me fill and do the job the way that you would like it done. . . .

20

We will continue with that directive unless you would like us to do 21

22

something different.

23

Three out of the current six Marshal’s Deputies were either employed by the Marshal’s

24

Office or finishing the required police training for the Marshal’s Office at the time

25

Marshal Barlow wrote this letter to Jeffs. 26

27

26. Marshal Barlow was later decertified as a peace officer by the Arizona Peace Officers

28

Standards and Training Board (“AZPOST”) for failing to comply with an Arizona

8

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 9 of 19

1

Attorney General investigation. On August 7, 2007, an administrative law judge, in

2

reviewing AZPOST’s decertification decision, determined that Barlow “displayed bias

3

in favor of Warren Jeffs and the FLDS, in derogation of his oath to neutrally enforce

4 the law.”

5

6

27. On at least one occasion, in July 2011, the then-Marshal and Marshal’s Deputies

7

participated in the building of fences on UEP Trust property that the FLDS had

8

illegally occupied without permission of the UEP Trust.

9 28. Since the UEP trust was reformed in 2006, the Marshal’s Office has consistently
10 disregarded the validity of Trust-signed occupancy agreements and of legal rulings that
11

12

guarantee the rights of non-FLDS Trust beneficiaries. For example, in December

13

2011, Marshal’s Deputies refused to enforce the occupancy agreement held by a non-

14 FLDS individual for a property known as the Holm School Building, located at 1055
15 Carling Street, Hildale, Utah. Several FLDS members entered the building and locked
16

17

out the rightful non-FLDS occupants of the building. The FLDS members occupying

18

the building refused to allow the rightful non-FLDS occupants to retain possession of

19

the Holm School Building. Those non-FLDS individuals contacted county law

20

enforcement to remove the FLDS trespassers on or about December 20, 2011. At the 21

22

request of County officials, Marshal’s Deputies also arrived at the Holm School later

23

that day. The Marshal’s Deputies refused to remove the FLDS trespassers, and the

24

County Sheriff’s Deputies were forced to ensure the removal of the trespassers in light

25

of the Marshal’s Officers’ failure to take any affirmative steps. One of the Marshal’s 26

27

Deputies not only refused to assist the Sheriff’s deputies, but left the scene. On another

28

occasion, in August 2008, then-Marshal Jonathan Roundy, responded to a property

9

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 10 of 19

1

dispute between an FLDS member and a non-FLDS individual. The Special Fiduciary

2

and his agent informed Marshal Roundy that the non-FLDS member had permission,

3

and therefore a right, to occupy the property. Nonetheless, Marshal Roundy sided with

4 the FLDS member based on religious affiliation. In announcing his decision, Marshal

5

6

Roundy stated, “[the FLDS member] says this is his property, and we are going to

7

honor him because he is a member of the Church, and he has asked [the non-FLDS] to

8

leave, and that is where I am going to stand as Chief of the Police.”

9 29. Additionally, on February 8, 2012, the Marshal’s Office responded to a report that
10 FLDS members were building an illegal fence that encroached onto property validly
11

12

occupied by a non-FLDS individual. A representative of the Special Fiduciary

13

informed a Marshal’s Officer that the fence was being built without permission and

14 should be stopped immediately. The Marshal’s Officer failed to act to stop the FLDS
15 members from putting up the fence.
16

17

30. The Marshal’s Office uses its authority to aid the FLDS Church by facilitating the

18

unlawful evictions of non-FLDS residents and refusing to permit non-FLDS

19

individuals to move into properties for which they have occupancy agreements.

20

31. The Marshal’s Office arrests non-FLDS individuals without probable cause on the 21

22

basis of religion. Specific incidents include arresting non-FLDS individuals for

23

trespass on properties that they had the right to enter, arresting non-FLDS individuals

24

without probable cause for theft of services, and holding an adult non-FLDS woman in

25

jail overnight without probable cause on the alleged ground of being a minor in 26

27

possession of alcohol.

28

10

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 11 of 19

1

32. The Marshal’s Office has seized the property of non-FLDS individuals without due

2

process of law. For example, in April or May 2010, the Marshal’s Office departed

3

from its normal procedures in handling a stud horse who escaped from its non-FLDS

4 owner. The Marshal’s Office caused the horse to be euthanized without contacting the

5

6

owner. Members of the Marshal’s Office knew or should have known the stud horse,

7

which had distinct markings, and they knew or should have known the identity of the

8

horse’s owner. This action was taken on the basis of the owner’s religious affiliation.

9 33. The actions and omissions of the Marshal’s Office constitute an impermissible
10 delegation of decision-making and authority to the FLDS, an entanglement of religious
11

12

and civil functions, a fusion of government power and religious authority, and have the

13

purpose and effect of the Cities impermissibly advancing religion. Because of these

14 actions and omissions, there is no effective means of guaranteeing that the Cities’
15 governmental power is neutrally employed.
16

17

34. The states of Utah and Arizona have taken steps to address the unlawful policing

18

practices in the Towns, including in early 2012, when the state legislatures of Arizona

19

and Utah each introduced bills that would have had the effect of disbanding the

20

Marshal’s Office. Both bills failed to pass. 21

22

35. The actions and omissions of the Marshal’s Office constitute a pattern or practice of

23

discriminatory policing against non-FLDS individuals on the basis of religion, an

24

impermissible preference for the FLDS church in the implementation of its law-

25

enforcement responsibilities, and treatment of those who are not members of the FLDS 26

27

as outside of the full and equal status as citizens.

28

11

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 12 of 19

1

Housing Discrimination

2 36. Defendants Colorado City, Hildale, TCWA, and Twin City Power have treated non-

3

FLDS individuals differently than FLDS residents because of religion by making

4 housing unavailable to non-FLDS residents. In addition to the conduct described

5

6

above, which resulted in violations of federally protected housing rights of non-FLDS,

7

Defendants have, since approximately 2008, denied or unreasonably delayed water and

8

electric service to non-FLDS individuals, refused to issue them building permits, and

9 otherwise prevented non-FLDS individuals and the Trust from constructing new
10 housing or occupying existing housing, all on the ground of religion.
11

12

37. When non-FLDS residents have requested water service at new properties, TCWA has

13

denied their requests. The Cities and TCWA claim that they cannot provide water

14 service to new properties because of a water shortage, while at the same time FLDS
15 residents have received such services. In fact, there is no water shortage in the Cities
16

17

that would justify these denials.

18

38. The Cities and TCWA have refused to permit non-FLDS individuals or the Trust to

19

build new housing or improve existing housing on Trust-owned land. In some

20

circumstances, the Cities and TCWA cite a water shortage as the reason for their 21

22

refusals. In other circumstances, they claim that the Trust or non-FLDS individuals

23

have no right to occupy or control the land.

24

39. During the same period in which Defendants Colorado City, Hildale, and TCWA

25

denied non-FLDS residents water service, they have provided water service to new 26

27

properties occupied or managed by FLDS residents. In some instances they have

28

12

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 13 of 19

1

installed such connections at night; at other times they have installed the connections in

2

putative exchange for water rights of far lesser value.

3

40. The Cities have refused requests from the Trust to subdivide Trust property into

4 smaller lots. The Cities’ refusal to permit subdivision has prevented the Trust from

5

6

transferring the deeds of those smaller lots to non-FLDS Trust beneficiaries.

7

41. Prior to July 2009, Defendants Colorado City, Hildale, and Twin City Power delayed

8

providing electric connections to non-FLDS individuals or refused to provide such

9 connections at all. During the same period, they provided electric connections to
10 similarly situated FLDS individuals and entities. Since July 2009, the Cities have
11

12

delayed providing necessary information regarding non-FLDS-occupied properties to

13

Garkane Energy, the Cities’ current electricity provider, resulting in a delay before

14 non-FLDS residents and entities receive electricity at their properties.
15 Denial of Access to Public Facilities
16

17

42. Beginning in approximately 2008, the Cities have denied non-FLDS individuals equal

18

utilization of public facilities on the basis of religion.

19

43. Cottonwood Park (“the Park”) and Cottonwood Zoo (“the Zoo”) are owned, operated,

20

or managed by or on behalf of the Cities. 21

22

44. The United States has received signed written complaints of discrimination against

23

non-FLDS individuals at the Zoo and the Park by the Cities.

24

45. On or about May 18, 2010, a group of non-FLDS children attempted to play at the

25

Park. A Marshal’s Deputy told the children that they could not play at the Park and 26

27

threatened them with arrest if they continued to play.

28

13

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 14 of 19

1

46. In addition, beginning in approximately 2008, members of the Marshal’s Office and

2

other officials of the Cities have told other non-FLDS individuals that they may not

3

play at the Park.

4 47. The Marshal’s Office allows FLDS individuals to play at the Park.

5

6

48. Beginning in approximately 2008, members of the Marshal’s Office have harassed

7

non-FLDS individuals who were lawfully on the Zoo premises.

8

49. Beginning in approximately 2008, the Marshal’s Office withdrew police protection

9 from the Zoo when its occupancy agreement was taken over by a non-FLDS
10 individual. When non-FLDS individuals presented the Marshal’s Office with evidence
11

12

that FLDS individuals had been vandalizing the Zoo, the Marshal’s Office refused to

13

act on those allegations.

14 50. The Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States
15 Department of Justice, on delegation from the Attorney General, has certified that all
16

17

requirements specified in 42 U.S.C. § 2000b have been met. The Certificate of the

18

Assistant Attorney General is appended to this Complaint and is incorporated herein.

19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20 51. Plaintiff re-alleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the
21

22

paragraphs above.

23

52. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through

24

the Fourteenth Amendment, provides, in pertinent part, that: “Congress shall make no

25

law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 26

27

thereof. . . .”

28

53. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

14

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 15 of 19

1

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,

2

and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be

3

violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

4 supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the

5

6

place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

7

54. Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

8

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to

9 the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
10 State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
11

12

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

13

United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,

14 or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
15 within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
16

17

55. By the actions set forth above, Defendants Colorado City and Hildale have engaged in

18

and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of

19

rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the First, Fourth, and

20

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the laws of the United 21

22

States. These actions constitute violations of 42 U.S.C. § 14141.

23

56. Persons who are subject to Defendants’ conduct are suffering, and will continue to

24

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief.

25

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 26

27

57. Plaintiff re-alleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the

28

paragraphs above.

15

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 16 of 19

1

58. By the actions set forth above, Defendants have:

2

a. Refused to negotiate for the sale of housing, denied housing, or otherwise made

3

housing unavailable because of religion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);

4 b. Discriminated in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling

5

6

because of religion, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b);

7

and

8

c. Coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with a person in the exercise or

9 enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of
10 his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of,
11

12

a right granted or protected by the Fair Housing Act, in violation of the Fair

13

Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617.

14 59. Defendants’ actions described above constitute:
15 a. A pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by the
16

17

Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619; or

18

b. A denial to a group of persons rights granted by the Fair Housing Act,

19

which raises an issue of general public importance, in violation of the Fair

20

Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a). 21

22

60. There are persons who have been injured by Defendants’ discriminatory actions and

23

practices who are aggrieved persons as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i). These persons

24

have suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory actions and practices

25

described above. 26

27

61. Defendants’ conduct described above was intentional, willful, and taken in disregard

28

for the rights guaranteed under the Fair Housing Act.

16

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 17 of 19

1

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

2 62. Plaintiff re-alleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the

3

paragraphs above.

4 63. By the actions set forth above, Defendants Colorado City and Hildale have deprived

5

6

individuals of, or threatened individuals with the loss of, the right to the equal

7

protection of the laws on account of religion by denial of equal utilization of a public

8

facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of Defendants Colorado

9 City and Hildale, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000b.

10

11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12 WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court:

13

a. Enter a judgment declaring that the Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein,

14 violates the Fair Housing Act, Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First,
15 Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and
16

17

42 U.S.C. § 14141;

18

b. Enter an order enjoining the Defendants from:

19

i. Refusing to negotiate for the sale of housing, denying housing, or

20

otherwise making housing unavailable because of religion, in violation of 21

22

42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);

23

ii. Discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a

24

dwelling because of religion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); and

25

iii. Coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with a person in the 26

27

exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or

28

enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person

17

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 18 of 19

1

in the exercise or enjoyment of, a right granted or protected by Section

2

804 of the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617;

3

c. Enter an order enjoining Defendants Colorado City and Hildale, including but

4 not limited to their law enforcement officers, from violating the rights of

5

6

individuals on the ground of religion in violation of the First, Fourth, and

7

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the laws of the

8

United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 14141;

9 d. Enter an order enjoining Defendants Colorado City and Hildale from depriving
10 individuals of or threatening individuals with the loss of the right to the equal
11

12

protection of the laws on account of religion by denial of equal utilization of a

13

public facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of

14 Defendants Colorado City and Hildale, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000b;
15 e. Enter an order enjoining Defendants from failing or refusing to take such
16

17

affirmative steps as may be necessary to prevent the recurrence of any

18

discriminatory or otherwise unlawful conduct in the future and to eliminate, to

19

the extent practicable, the effects of Defendants’ discriminatory or otherwise

20

unlawful conduct; 21

22

f. Award compensatory and punitive damages, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

23

§ 3614(d)(1)(B) to all persons harmed by the Defendants’ discriminatory

24

practices;

25

g. Assess a civil penalty against each defendant in an amount authorized by 26

27

28

18

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1 Filed 06/21/12 Page 19 of 19

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9

Ronald Cooke a nd Jinjer Cooke, husba nd and wife,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 v.

12 Town of Col orado City, Arizona; City of

13

Hildale, Utah, Hildale-Colorado City Utilities (Hildale-Colorado City Power,

14

Water, Sewer and Gas Depar tment and Twin City Water Auth ority); Twin City

15 Power,

No. CV 10-08105-PCT-JAT ORDER

16

Defendants.

17

Pending before the C ourt is the United States’ Motion to Transfer Related Case

18 (Doc. 275). The Court now rules on the Motion.1

19

I. BACKGROUND

20

In December 2011, a Joint Amended Complaint was f iled by Plaintiffs Ronald

21 Cooke and Jinjer Cooke (the “Cookes”) and Plaintiff-Intervenor the State of Arizona

22 against Defendants the Town of Colorado City, Arizona, City of Hildale, Utah, Twin City

23 Water Authority, and Twin City Power in case number CV 10- 8105-PCT-JAT (the

24

25 1 Although Defendant Town of Colorado City requested oral a rgument on the
26 Motion to Transfer, the issue is fully briefed and oral argument would not aid the Court’s
27 decisional process. Accordingly, the Town of Colorado City’s request for oral argument is denied. See Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 92 6 (9th Cir. 1998); Lake at Las Vegas
28 Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Dev. Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).

1 “Cooke case”). The Joint Amended Complaint c ontains eight counts against Defendants.

2 The only federal law claims are violations of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and violations of the

3 Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. section 3601, et. seq. The remaining six counts are f or

4 violations of state law. The C ookes and the State of Arizona seek redress for the

5 allegedly discriminatory and unlawful housing practices imposed by Defendants against

6 the Cookes. Specifically, the Cookes and the St ate of Arizona assert that Mr. Cooke was

7 discriminated against in the provision of utility services, including connections to the

8 municipal culinary water system, because he is disabled and because he is not a m ember

9 of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“FLDS”).

10

In June 2012, the United States of America (the “United States”) filed a complaint

11 against the Town of Colorado City, Arizona, the City of Hild ale, Utah, Twin City Power

12 and Twin City Water Authority, Inc. in case number CV 12-8123-PCT-HRH (the “United

13 States case”). In that Compla int, the United States asserts that Defenda nts have violated

14 (1) the constitutional rights of non-FLDS individuals in violation of the First, Fourth, and

15 Fourteenth Amendments, (2) the Fair Housing Act, and (3) ha ve deprived individuals of

16 the right to equal pr otection of the laws on account of religion by denia l of equal

17 utilization of a public facility.

18

Specifically, the United States alleges th at members of the Co lorado City/Hildale

19 Marshal’s Office have displayed a pattern and practice of discri minating against non-

20 FLDS individuals by, among other things, (1) failing to provide needed police services to

21 non-FLDS members, (2) selectively enforci ng laws and regulations against non-F LDS

22 individuals on the bas is of religion, (3) engagi ng in various abuses of power in dealing

23 with non-FLDS individuals; (4) failing to cooperate with other law enforcement offices in

24 investigating crimes against non-FLDS in dividuals or crimes committed by FLDS

25 individuals, (5) consistently disregarding the validity of UEP Trust-signed occupancy

26 agreements and legal rules that guarantee th e rights of non-FLDS Trust beneficiaries, (6)

27 facilitating unlawful evictions of non-FLDS residents and refusing to permit non-FLDS

28 individuals to m ove into properties for w hich they have signed occupancy agreements,

- 2 -

1 (7) arresting non-FLDS members without probable cause, and (8) seizing the property of

2 non-FLDS individuals without due process of law.

3

The United States further alleges that Defendants Colorado City, Hildale, Twin

4 City Water Authority, and Tw in City Power have treat ed non-FLDS individuals

5 differently than FLDS residences because of religion by m aking housing unavailable to

6 non-FLDS residences, denying or unreasonably delayi ng water and electric services to

7 non-FLDS individuals, refusing to issue them building permits, or otherwise preventing

8 non-FLDS individuals from constructing new housing or o ccupying existing housing.

9 The United States also alleges that the C ities have denied non-F LDS individuals equal

10 utilization of public facilities, such as the Cottonwood Park and the Cottonwood Zoo, on

11 the basis of religion.

12

The United States now moves to transfer the United States case pursuant to LRCiv

13 42.1(a). Defendants oppose the Motion to Transfer.2

14

II. LEGAL STANDARD & ANALYSIS

15

Pursuant to LRCiv 42.1(a),

16

Any party m ay file a m otion to transfer the case or cases

17

involved to a single Judge whenever two or more cases are

pending before different Judges and any pa rty believes that

18

19

20

2 The Court notes that it appears that Defendants challenge the United St ates’ standing to bring a motion to transfer in this case. See Doc. 308 (“the United States’

21 Motion appears to be procedurally improper. In ge neral, a non- party may not file a

22

motion in a given cas e without first intervening or seeking the court’s leave.”). LRCiv 42.1(a) states “Any party may file a motion to transfer the case or cases to a single Judge

23 whenever two or more cases are pe nding before different Judges and any party believes

24

that such cases . . .” LRCiv 42.1(a) (emphasis added). The rule then lists the five factors to be consi dered in determ ining whether a ca se should be transferred. None of those

25 factors suggest that the party moving to transfer need to be a common party to both cases.

Rather, the rule sugge sts that a party to either case could m ove to transfer another case 26 should that party believe that the case it seeks to transfer meets one or m ore of the five

27 factors listed in the rule. Accordingly, the Court finds nothing procedurally improper about the United States filing a motion a transfer a case to wh ich it is a party that meets
28 some of the factors in LRCiv 42.1(a).

- 3 -

1

such cases: (1) arise from substa ntially the same transaction

2

or event; (2) involve substan tially the same parties or property; (3) involv e the sam e patent, tradem ark, or

3

copyright; (4) call for determination of substantially the same

4

questions of law; or (5) f or any other rea son would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different Judges.

5 LRCiv 42.1(a).

6

“District Court judges have ‘broad di scretion’ regarding the assignment or

7 reassignment of cases.” Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 575 (9 th Cir. 1991) (interna l

8 citation omitted).

9

The Cooke case and the United States cas e are against the same defendants and

10 both cases arise from an alleged pattern of discrimination engaged in by Defenda nts.

11 Further, both cases share common legal issues c oncerning violations of the Fair Housing

12 Act and violations of certain constitutional rights of non-FDLS individuals. While the

13 Court acknowledges that these cases are rela ted and do ge nerally arise from the same

14 transactions or events, the Court finds that there are substantial differences between the

15 cases and, thus, a transfer is not warranted under these circumstances.

16

Specifically, the facts needed to prove many of the a lleged actions establishing a

17 pattern of discrimination by the Colorado City/Hildale Marshal’s Office and the Town of

18 Colorado City, the City of Hildale, Twin City Water Authority, and Twin City Power in

19 the United States case raise man y new factual and legal issues that are not likely to be

20 raised in the Cooke case. Further, because thes e two cases are in such different stages i n

21 the litigation—the Cooke case is at the summary judgment st age and the United States

22 case was just recently filed— th ere is unlikely to be s ubstantial duplication of effort that

23 would be saved if both cases were being heard by one judge. Accordingly, because the

24 cases are at very different stages of litigatio n and address different issues, transfer would

25 not be economical. Accordingly, the Motion to Transfer is denied.

26 III. CONCLUSION

27

Based on the foregoing,

28

- 4 -

1

IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Transfer Related Case (Doc.

2 275) is denied.

3

The Clerk of the C ourt shall file a c opy of this Order in CV 12-8123-P CT-HRH

4 and CV 10-08105-PCT-JAT.

5

Dated this 16th day of November, 2012.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 106 Filed 06/06/13 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs.

)

)

TOWN OF COLORADO CITY, ARIZONA; )

CITY OF HILDALE, UTAH; TWIN CITY )

POWER; and TWIN CITY WATER

)

AUTHORITY, INC.,

)

)

Defendants. )

___________________________________)

No. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division)

O R D E R Motion to Dismiss The Hildale defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s Fair Housing Act claims for damages and civil penalties.1 Defendant Town of Colorado City joins in this motion.2 The motion is opposed.3 Oral argument was requested and has been heard.
Background Plaintiff is the United States of America. Defendants are the Town of Colorado City, Arizona; City of Hildale, Utah; Twin City Power; and Twin City Water Authority, Inc.
1Docket No. 61. 2Docket No. 62. 3Docket No. 65.
-1-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 106 Filed 06/06/13 Page 2 of 9
Plaintiff commenced this action on June 21, 2012. Plaintiff alleges that the Town of Colorado City and the City of Hildale are adjoining communities “populated primarily by members of the” Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints (FLDS) and that although non-FLDS individuals live in the cities, “they are a distinct minority.”4 In its second cause of action, plaintiff alleges that defendants have violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-19, by engaging in a pattern and practice of denying fair housing to non-FLDS residents of the defendant cities. More specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants have denied or delayed water and electrical service and denied building permits to non-FLDS individuals “since approximately 2008[.]”5 Plaintiff also alleges that “[p]rior to July 2009,” defendants delayed or denied electrical connections to non-FLDS individuals and that “[s]ince July 2009,” defendants have delayed providing information to the cities’ current electrical provider, which has resulted in a delay of service for non-FLDS individuals and entities.6 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages, and civil penalties for defendants’ alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act. Defendants now move to dismiss plaintiff’s Fair Housing Act claims for damages and civil
4Complaint at 4, ¶ 10, Docket No. 1. 5Id. at 12, ¶ 36. 6Id. at 31, ¶ 41.
-2-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 106 Filed 06/06/13 Page 3 of 9
penalties, arguing that these claims are barred by the statute of limitations.7
Discussion When as here, a defendant has answered, a Rule 12 motion to dismiss is treated as a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011). “Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) motions are functionally equivalent[.]” Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012). “‘A motion to dismiss based on the running of the statute of limitations period may be granted only if the assertions of the complaint, read with the required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove the statute was tolled.’” Centaur Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund Ltd. v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 878 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1014 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1206–07 (9th Cir. 1995)). “Although, as a general rule, a district court may not consider materials not originally included in the pleadings in deciding a Rule 12 motion, it ‘may take judicial notice of matters of public record’ and consider them without converting a Rule 12 motion into one for summary judgment.’” United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno County, 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th
7There is no statute of limitations for Fair Housing Act claims seeking equitable relief. Garcia v. Brockway, 526 F.3d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 2008).
-3-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 106 Filed 06/06/13 Page 4 of 9
Cir. 2008) (quoting Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).
Plaintiff’s claim for damages under the Fair Housing Act is subject to the general three-year statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2415(b). Garcia, 526 F.3d at 460. Section 2415(b) provides:
Subject to the provisions of section 2416 of this title, and except as otherwise provided by Congress, every action for money damages brought by the United States or an officer or agency thereof which is founded upon a tort[8] shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within three years after the right of action first accrues[.] 28 U.S.C. § 2415(b). “‘A claim normally accrues ... when the factual and legal prerequisites for filing suit are in place.’” United States v. Taigen & Sons, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1143 (D. Idaho 2003) (quoting 3M Co. v. Browner, 17 F.3d 1453, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). Because plaintiff has alleged that defendants were denying or unreasonably delaying utilities and denying building permits to nonFLDS individuals and entities since 2008, defendants argue that it is clear from the face of plaintiff’s complaint that plaintiff was aware of the alleged pattern and practice of housing discrimination more than three years before it filed its complaint in June 2012.
8A Fair Housing Act claim is “in the nature of a tort claim[.]” United States v. Marsten Apartments, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 257, 263 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
-4-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 106 Filed 06/06/13 Page 5 of 9
This argument fails, however, because plaintiff’s allegations do not
indicate when plaintiff became aware of the alleged pattern and
practice of housing violations. Plaintiff alleges that the pattern
and practice of housing discrimination had begun as early as 2008.
The critical date here is not when the alleged pattern and practice
began, but rather, the date on which plaintiff became aware of the
pattern and practice. Section 3614(a) of Title 42 of the United
States Code, which governs Fair Housing Act pattern and practice
claims, provides that
[w]henever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights granted by this subchapter, or that any group of persons has been denied any of the rights granted by this subchapter and such denial raises an issue of general public importance, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States district court.
This statute is unambiguous. It provides that a pattern and
practice claim accrues when the Attorney General9 has reasonable
cause to believe that someone is engaging in a pattern and practice
of housing discrimination.10 Contrary to defendants’ contention,
9The Attorney General has delegated the authority to file pattern and practice claims to the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States. 28 C.F.R. § 0.50.
10Because a Fair Housing Act pattern and practice claim accrues when the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division has reasonable cause to believe that someone was engaging in a pattern or practice of housing discrimination, there is no need to
(continued...)
-5-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 106 Filed 06/06/13 Page 6 of 9
the face of plaintiff’s complaint does not indicate that plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that defendants were allegedly engaged in a pattern and practice of housing discrimination more than three years before it filed the complaint in this matter.
The information that defendants submit about three of the aggrieved persons11 also does not indicate that plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that defendants were engaged in a pattern and practice of housing discrimination more than three years before plaintiff filed its complaint. Defendants submit a copy of a court decision in UEP Trust v. Ross Chatwin, Case No. CV-2004-83,12 which was a forcible entry and detainer action and a copy of what is purported to be a news article dated April 24, 2005 in which Ross Chatwin claimed that his utilities had been shut off by the Cities.13 Defendants also submit a copy of what is purported to be a news article dated July 26, 2005, regarding allegations that Andrew Chatwin was cited for trespassing when he attempted to move into a
10(...continued) consider plaintiff’s continuing violation and discovery rule arguments.
11If plaintiff prevails on its Fair Housing Act pattern and practice claim, the court may award “monetary damages to persons aggrieved[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(b).
12Exhibit A, Hildale Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Damages and Civil Penalties, Docket No. 61.
13Exhibit B, Hildale Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Damages and Civil Penalties, Docket No. 61.
-6-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 106 Filed 06/06/13 Page 7 of 9
house that he claimed had been built by his father.14 Defendants also submit a copy of the docket sheet of the § 1983 case Andrew Chatwin filed against Marshal’s Officers and Hildale City in 2006.15 Finally, defendants offer an excerpt of the deposition of John Cook that was taken in Cooke v. Hildale-Colorado City Utilities, Case No. 3:10-cv-08105-JAT, in which he testified that he was denied a building permit in May 2007 and that he communicated with a representative of the Arizona Attorney General’s office about the matter, but he could not remember exactly when, other than it was between May 2007 and October 2010.16
This evidence17 says nothing about when plaintiff became aware of the alleged pattern and practice of housing discrimination. The running of the statute of limitations for plaintiff’s pattern and practice claim is not based on when the alleged victims were discriminated against. It is based on when plaintiff had reasonable
14Exhibit C, Hildale Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Damages and Civil Penalties, Docket No. 61.
15Exhibit D, Hildale Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Damages and Civil Penalties, Docket No. 61.
16Exhibit E, Hildale Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Damages and Civil Penalties, Docket No. 61.
17The court can take judicial notice of official court documents and of the existence of the newspaper articles and the allegations contained therein. See Hurd v. Garcia, 454 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1055 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (taking judicial notice of court records); Rivas v. Fischer, 687 F.3d 514, 520 n.4 (2d Cir. 2012)(taking judicial notice of the fact that media coverage contained certain information but not accepting the truth of the information contained therein).
-7-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 106 Filed 06/06/13 Page 8 of 9
cause to believe that defendants were engaged in a pattern and practice of housing discrimination. At this point, that date is unknown18 and thus defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for damages under the Fair Housing Act is denied.
As for plaintiff’s claim for civil penalties under the Fair Housing Act, that claim is subject to the five-year statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2462. Section 2462 provides:
Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued.... 28 U.S.C. § 2462. As discussed above, defendants contend that at least three of the violations on which plaintiff’s pattern and practice claim is based accrued over five years before plaintiff filed its complaint. But as also explained above, the accrual of plaintiff’s pattern and practice claim is not based on when the alleged victims were discriminated against; it is based on when plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that defendants were engaged in a pattern and practice of housing discrimination, a date which is presently
18At oral argument, counsel represented that plaintiff is contending that it first became aware of the alleged pattern and practice of housing discrimination on April 7, 2010. However, as defense counsel pointed out, discovery in this case has just begun and whether plaintiff will be able to prove this contention is not yet known.
-8-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 106 Filed 06/06/13 Page 9 of 9 unknown. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for civil penalties under the Fair Housing Act is denied.
Conclusion Defendants’ motion to dismiss19 is denied. Defendants are not precluded from raising a statute of limitations defense at a later date should they discover that plaintiff was aware of the alleged pattern and practice of housing discrimination outside of the applicable statute of limitations periods. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 6th day of June, 2013.
/s/ H. Russel Holland United States District Judge
19Docket No. 61. -9-

 
 WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

TOWN OF COLORADO CITY, ARIZONA, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________)

No. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division)

O R D E R Motions for Partial Summary Judgment Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment.1 This motion is opposed.2 Defendants move for partial summary judgment.3 These motions are opposed.4 Oral argument was requested and has been heard.

1Docket No. 541. 2Docket Nos. 560 & 562. 3Docket Nos. 544 & 548. In addition to filing a separate motion for partial summary judgment, the Hildale defendants join in Colorado City’s motion for partial summary judgment. See Docket No. 548 at 1, n.1. 4Docket No. 559 & 564.
-1-

Facts Plaintiff is the United States of America. Defendants are the Town of Colorado City, Arizona; the City of Hildale, Utah; Twin City Power (TCP); and Twin City Water Authority, Inc. (TCWA).5 Plaintiff alleges that “[d]efendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of illegal discrimination against individuals who are not members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (‘FLDS’).”6 Plaintiff alleges that defendants “have acted in concert with FLDS leadership to deny non-FLDS individuals housing, police protection, and access to public space and services.”7 Plaintiff further alleges that the Cities’ joint police department, the Colorado City Marshal’s Office (CCMO), “has inappropriately used its state-granted law enforcement authority to enforce the edits of the FLDS, to the detriment of non-FLDS members.”8 In Count I of its complaint, plaintiff asserts a claim under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, against the Cities. Plaintiff alleges that the Cities
5Colorado City and the City of Hildale are referred to collectively as “the Cities.” Hildale, TCP, and TCWA are referred to collectively as “the Hildale defendants.”
6Complaint at 2, ¶ 4, Docket No. 1. 7Id. (footnote omitted). 8Id. at 3, ¶ 4.
-2-

engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern and practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States.[9]
In Count II of its complaint, plaintiff asserts a single claim brought pursuant to §
3614(a) of Fair Housing Act (FHA), which “prohibits various forms of discrimination in the
sale or rental of housing[.]”10 United States v. Balistrieri, 981 F.2d 916, 927 (7th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff alleges that all four defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of violating
Sections 3604(a), 3604(b), and 3617 of the FHA11 and that their conduct constituted “[a]
denial to a group of persons rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, which raises an issue
of general public importance, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).”12
More specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants “have, since approximately 2008, denied
or unreasonably delayed water and electric service to non-FLDS individuals, refused to
issue them building permits, and otherwise prevented non-FLDS individuals and the
9Id. at 15, ¶ 55. 10“Section 3614(a) provides that the Attorney General may bring a civil action to enforce the Fair Housing Act whenever he ‘has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full and equal enjoyment of the rights secured by [the Act] or that any group of persons has been denied any of the rights granted by this subchapter and such denial raises an issue of general public importance....’” Balistrieri, 981 F.2d at 927 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a)). 11Complaint at 16, ¶ 58, Docket No. 1. 12Id. at ¶ 59.
-3-

Trust[13] from constructing new housing or occupying existing housing[.]”14 Plaintiff alleges that the Cities and TCWA denied non-FLDS individuals’ requests for new water service and that the Cities denied building permits to non-FLDS members due to a water shortage, even though “there is no water shortage in the Cities that would justify these denials.”15 Plaintiff alleges that “[t]here are persons who have been injured by [d]efendants’ discriminatory actions and practices who are aggrieved persons as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i). These persons have suffered damages as a result of [d]efendants’ discriminatory actions and practices.....”16 For Count II, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties, and damages on behalf of the sixteen aggrieved persons it has disclosed.
Plaintiff commenced this action on June 21, 2012. Prior to the commencement of this case, a case entitled Cooke v. Town of Colorado City, Case No. 3:10-cv-8105-PCT-JAT, was filed. In Cooke, the State of Arizona and Ron and Jinjer Cooke alleged that defendants violated the FHA and engaged in a pattern and pattern of discrimination on the basis of
13The Trust is the United Effort Plan Trust, which until 2005 was controlled by the FLDS church, but was reformed by a Utah court in 2006 and is now administered by a special fiduciary, “who is not affiliated with the FLDS Church[.]” Id. at 4-5, ¶ 13. Much of the land and many of the Cities’ residences belong to the Trust and “[r]esidents who live in Trust-owned homes typically have signed occupancy agreements with the Trust.” Id. at 4, ¶ 12.
14Id. at 12, ¶ 36. 15Id. at ¶ 37. 16Id. at 16, ¶ 60.
-4-

religion in violation of the Arizona Fair Housing Act (AFHA). The Cooke complaint was based in large part on allegations that the Cookes were denied a water connection because defendants claimed that “due to a water shortage, no new water connections would be provided for property that had never had water service....”17 The Cooke complaint also alleged that the CCMO interfered with the Cookes’ housing rights.18 The Cookes asserted FHA claims based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), 3604(b), 3604(f), and 3617.19 The Cookes and the State also asserted various claims under the AFHA20 and the State asserted a pattern and practice claim under the AFHA based on allegations that defendants had a pattern and practice of denying utilities to non-FLDS individuals.21
The Cooke case went to trial and on March 20, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Cookes and the State. The jury found that defendants had “violated the federal Fair Housing Act and the Arizona Fair Housing Act by discriminating against the Cookes in the provision of services or facilities because of religion.”22 The jury found that
17Joint Second Amended Complaint at 10, ¶ 38, Exhibit 1, Hildale Defendants’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 563.
18Id. at 20-22, ¶¶ 85-91. 19Id. at 24, ¶¶ 107-109. 20Id. at 25-28, ¶¶ 119-140. 21Id. at 29, ¶¶ 141-146. 22Order at 3, Docket No. 703 in Case No. 3:10-cv-8105-PCT-JAT.
-5-

defendants had “violated the federal Fair Housing Act and the Arizona Fair Housing Act by coercing, intimidating, threatening, interfering with, or retaliating against the Cookes in the enjoyment of their dwelling because (1) of religion or (2) the Cookes asserted rights, or encouraged others to assert their rights, protected by the federal Fair Housing Act or the Arizona Fair Housing Act.”23 And, the jury found that defendants “violated the Arizona Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern and practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any right granted by the” AFHA.24
Plaintiff now moves for partial summary judgment, arguing that collateral estoppel applies to the issue of defendants’ liability on Count II. Colorado City, joined by the Hildale defendants, moves for summary judgment on Count I of plaintiff’s complaint and on Count II damages. And, the Hildale defendants move for summary judgment on plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief under the FHA and for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Count II against TCP and TCWA.
Discussion Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The initial burden is on the moving party to show that there is an absence of genuine issues of
23Id. 24Id. at 4.
-6-

material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the moving party meets its initial burden, then the non-moving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court views the evidence of the non-movant in the light most favorable to that party, and all justifiable inferences are also to be drawn in its favor. Id. at 255. “[T]he court’s ultimate inquiry is to determine whether the ‘specific facts’ set forth by the nonmoving party, coupled with undisputed background or contextual facts, are such that a rational or reasonable jury might return a verdict in its favor based on that evidence.” T.W. Elec. Service, Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987).
Count I In Count I, plaintiff asserts a claim under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. Section 14141 provides in relevant part:
It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers ... that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Plaintiff alleges that the CCMO has engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprived persons of their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
-7-

As an initial matter, defendants argue that Count I should be limited to allegations that the CCMO engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants argue that the First and Fourth Amendment do not apply to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 14141. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (“We of course agree with petitioners that the Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race. But the constitutional basis for objecting to intentionally discriminatory application of laws is the Equal Protection Clause, not the Fourth Amendment.”); United States v. Johnson, 28 F. Supp. 3d 499, 514 (M.D.N.C. 2014) (“to the extent the Government is challenging a pattern of allegedly discriminatory individual traffic stops on the basis of ethnicity, Johnson is correct that the Equal Protection Clause, not the Fourth Amendment, applies”); United States v. City of Columbus, Ohio, Case No. CIV.A.2:99CV1097, 2000 WL 1133166, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2000) (“the Court concludes that § 14141 is a valid and proper exercise of congressional authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment”). Defendants argue that because any claim related to a pattern and practice of misconduct under § 14141 falls solely within the Fourteenth Amendment, they are entitled to summary judgment on the First and Fourth Amendment components of plaintiff’s § 14141 claim.
Defendants’ reliance on Whren is misplaced because that case did not involve a § 14141 claim. Defendants’ reliance on Johnson is also misplaced. There, the government
-8-

alleged that “Johnson, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Alamance County, North Carolina, engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory law enforcement activities directed against Latinos, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” Johnson, 28 F. Supp. 3d at 502. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court concluded that there were material questions of fact as to the government’s claim based on the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 512-13. As to the government’s claim based on the Fourth Amendment, the government contended that this claim “encompasse[d] the ACSO’s alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnicity in initiating traffic stops and use of vehicular checkpoints for general law enforcement purposes.” Id. at 513. “Johnson contends that the first does not state a claim under the Fourth Amendment, but rather under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 514. The court concluded that “to the extent the Government is challenging a pattern of allegedly discriminatory individual traffic stops on the basis of ethnicity, Johnson is correct that the Equal Protection Clause, not the Fourth Amendment, applies.” Id. But, the court did not hold that a § 14141 claim can never be based on the Fourth Amendment. Rather, “the court conclude[d] ... that the complaint raises a proper Fourth Amendment challenge to the extent it contends that the ACSO, as part of its alleged targeting of Latinos, has conducted checkpoints with a programmatic purpose that violates the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 516 (emphasis omitted); see also, United States v. Maricopa County, Ariz., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1073,
-9-

1081 (D. Ariz. 2012) (“[t]he plain language of the statute allows for a Section 14141 claim based on a First Amendment deprivation”).
Defendants’ reliance on City of Columbus is also misplaced. There, the court considered an argument that “Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in promulgating ... 42 U.S.C. § 14141.” City of Columbus, 2000 WL 1133166, at *1. The court rejected this argument because it concluded “that § 14141 is a valid and proper exercise of congressional authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at *9. The court did not hold that § 14141 claims could only be based on violations of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Thus, defendants’ argument that plaintiff cannot base its § 14141 claim on violations of the First and Fourth Amendments fails. Although the protections of the First and Fourth Amendments are effective against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, see Vlasak v. Superior Court of Calif. ex rel. County of Los Angeles, 329 F.3d 683, 687 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The First Amendment applies to the States and their political subdivisions through the Fourteenth Amendment”); Molina v. Richardson, 578 F.2d 846, 848 n.4 (9th Cir. 1978) (“The protections of the Fourth Amendment are effective against the states through the Fourteenth” Amendment), that does not mean that plaintiff cannot attempt to prove its § 14141 claim by establishing that the CCMO had a pattern and practice of violating the First and Fourth Amendments.
-10-

Defendants next argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Count I because plaintiff has no evidence to support its allegation that the CCMO engaged in a pattern and practice of religious discrimination. Plaintiff alleges that the CCMO engaged in a pattern and practice of religious discrimination because it “fails to protect non-FLDS individuals from victimization by FLDS members, fails to investigate crimes against nonFLDS individuals and their property, and refuses to arrest FLDS individuals who have committed crimes against non-FLDS individuals.”25 These are allegations that the CCMO violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985)) (“‘The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.’”). Plaintiff has alleged several examples of the CCMO’s discriminatory conduct in paragraphs 18, 22, 23, 28, 30, and 32 of its complaint, but defendants argue that none of these examples involve religious discrimination.
But even if none of these examples suggest that the CCMO was treating non-FLDS individuals differently, plaintiff has come forward with other evidence which is sufficient to create issues of material fact as to whether the CCMO had a pattern and practice of
25Complaint at 5, ¶ 16, Docket No. 1. -11-

violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This evidence includes the arrest of Harvey Dockstader, a non-FLDS individual,26 the February 2013 ECO Alliance incident,27 and the arrest of William E. Timpson Jessop in 2011.28
There are also questions of material fact as to whether the CCMO violated the First Amendment. “The First Amendment provides that, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....’” Williams v. Calif., 764 F.3d 1002, 1011 (9th Cir. 2014). “The First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of religion is considered to be embodied in two clauses: the ‘Establishment Clause’ and the ‘Free Exercise Clause.’” Id. This case involves the Establishment Clause, which “prohibits the Government from compelling an individual to participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise from taking action that has the purpose or effect of promoting religion or a particular religious faith.” Id.
“There are three possible tests for determining whether [conduct] violates the Establishment Clause—the Lemon test, the Endorsement test and the Coercion Test.” Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School Dist., 597 F.3d 1007, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010). “Under the
26Dockstader Statement, Exhibit 44, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565.
27Exhibit 41, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565. 28Deposition of William E. Timpson Jessop at 97:19-98:20 & 115:20-116:14, Exhibit 24, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565.
-12-

Lemon test, to be constitutional (1) the challenged governmental action must have a secular purpose; (2) ‘its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion’; and (3) it ‘must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.’” Id. (quoting Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971)). “Under the Endorsement Test, [the court] look[s] to see whether the challenged governmental action has the purpose or effect of endorsing, favoring, or promoting religion, particularly if it has the effect of endorsing one religion over another.” Id. at 1037. “[T]he ‘coercion test’ emanat[es] from Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992), in which the Court observed, “[i]t is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion, or its exercise.” Turner v. Hickman, 342 F. Supp. 2d 887, 893-94 (E.D. Cal. 2004).
Plaintiff has come forward with evidence that FLDS leaders direct who becomes an officer and the Marshal. For example, Helaman Barlow testified that he was the interim Marshal for a period of time but then John Wayman, who was a FLDS church leader, “told me to let the city manager and council know that he okayed me becoming the permanent chief.”29 This evidence suggests control by the FLDS of government law enforcement, which may constitute unconstitutional fusion and entanglement. See Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 127 (1982 (“important, discretionary governmental powers [cannot]
29Deposition of Helaman Barlow (April 2014) at 27:22-28:4, Exhibit 14, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565.
-13-

be delegated to or shared with religious institutions”). Plaintiff has also come forward with evidence that suggests that CCMO officers endorsed and protected the FLDS church, often in violation of the oaths they took to uphold the law. For example, Dowayne Barlow testified that several CCMO officers, including Fred Barlow, Jonathan Roundy, Sam Johnson, and Helaman Barlow, dropped off parcels, letters, and contributions to couriers to give to Warren Jeffs, while he was a fugitive.30 And, plaintiff has come forward with evidence that CCMO officers were aware of marriages involving underage girls but did not open any criminal investigations regarding these illegal acts.31
Plaintiff has also come forward with evidence that creates issues of fact as to whether the CCMO had a pattern and practice of violating non-FLDS individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights. “‘The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the Government, and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest.’” Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002)). A reasonable factfinder could conclude that some of the incidents mentioned above objectively violate the Fourth Amendment. In addition, plaintiff has come forward with
30Deposition of Dowayne A. Barlow at 31:13-34:23, Exhibit 20, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565.
31Helaman Barlow Deposition at 66:9-67:15, Exhibit 14, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565.
-14-

evidence of investigatory stops which a reasonable factfinder could find violated the Fourth Amendment. For example, Sam Brower testified that he believed he was stopped “without any probable cause merely because I was in town trying to serve Haven Barlow with legal process.”32 Brower testified that he was cited for following too close even though the officer who stopped him was not a witness to the alleged incident.33
In sum, plaintiff may attempt to prove its § 14141 claim by establishing that defendants violated the First, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendments, and there are material questions of fact as to whether there have been any constitutional violations on the part of defendants. Thus, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Count I of plaintiff’s complaint.
Count II Count II is plaintiff’s FHA claim in which plaintiff alleges that defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of housing discrimination based on religion. Plaintiff argues that defendants are collaterally estopped from arguing that they are not liable under the FHA because the issue of whether defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of housing discrimination has been established in the Cooke case. “[O]ffensive nonmutual issue preclusion ... prevents ‘a defendant from relitigating the issues which a defendant
32The Deposition of Samuel E. Brower at 192:3-7, Exhibit 30, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565.
33Id. at 192:8-17. -15-

previously litigated and lost against another plaintiff.’” Syverson v. Int’l Business Machines Corp., 472 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 329 (1979)).
[T]he application of offensive nonmutual issue preclusion is appropriate only if (1) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue in the prior action, (2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior action, (3) the issue was decided in a final judgment, and (4) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior action[.] Id. (internal citations omitted). The court has “‘broad discretion’ ... to take potential shortcomings or indices of unfairness into account when considering whether to apply offensive nonmutual issue preclusion, even where the above-listed standard prerequisites are met.” Id. at 1078-79 (quoting Parklane Hosiery, 439 U.S. at 331). “‘Whether collateral estoppel is available is a mixed question of law and fact in which the legal issues predominate.’” Visa U.S.A. Inc. v. First Data Corp., 369 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F.2d 1507, 1519 (9th Cir. 1985), superseded in part by statute on other grounds as stated in Northrop Corp. v. Triad Int'l Mktg., S.A., 842 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff argues that defendants had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the Cooke case the issue of whether they engaged in a pattern and practice of housing
-16-

discrimination, which is the identical issue raised in Count II. Four factors courts consider
in determining whether issues are identical are:
“(1) is there a substantial overlap between the evidence or argument to be advanced in the second proceeding and that advanced in the first?
(2) does the new evidence or argument involve the application of the same rule of law as that involved in the prior proceeding?
(3) could pretrial preparation and discovery related to the matter presented in the first action reasonably be expected to have embraced the matter sought to be presented in the second?
(4) how closely related are the claims involved in the two proceedings?”
Kamilche Co. v. United States, 53 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Restatement
(Second) of Judgments § 27 cmt. c).
There is no dispute that any new evidence that plaintiff would present on Count II
in this case would involve the same rule of law that was applied to the pattern and practice
claim in Cooke. Although the State’s pattern and practice claim in Cooke was based on the
AFHA, rather than the FHA, these statutes are substantially equivalent and courts look to
cases interpreting the FHA to interpret the AFHA. See, e.g., Canady v. Prescott Canyon
Estates Homeowners Ass’n, 60 P.3d 231, 233 n.3 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (“Because the
provisions of Arizona’s Fair Housing Act involved in this appeal are virtually identical to
-17-

those provisions of the federal Act, federal case authority is persuasive in interpreting Arizona’s statute.”).
As for the other three factors, plaintiff argues that there is a substantial overlap of evidence, which in turn means that the pretrial preparation and discovery in Cooke embraced matters that will be presented in this case and also means that the claims in both cases are closely related. Plaintiff contends that the State in Cooke presented evidence that the FLDS church controls defendants, that defendants refused to cooperate with the Trust to make Trust land available to individuals regardless of their religion, that defendants denied water service to non-FLDS individuals, that the CCMO was controlled by the FLDS church and interfered with housing rights, that defendants frustrated the ability of nonFLDS members to enjoy Trust leases and occupancy agreements, and that defendants conspired with the FLDS church to use culinary water issues to deny housing on the basis of religion.34 Plaintiff contends that in this case, it will present evidence that defendants acted in concert with the FLDS leadership to deny non-FLDS individuals housing, that defendants operated as an arm of the FLDS church, that defendants denied water service to non-FLDS individuals, that defendants refused to issue building permits to non-FLDS individuals, that defendants used an alleged water shortage as a pretext for discrimination,
34To support its contentions as to what evidence was offered in the Cooke case, plaintiff relies on the judgment that was proposed by the State. Docket No. 687-1, Case No. 3:13-cv-08105-PCT-JAT. As defendants are quick to point out, this proposed judgment, which contained over 400 paragraphs, was not adopted by the court.
-18-

and that the CCMO interferes with housing rights by, among other things, arresting nonFLDS individuals for trespass on properties they have a right to enter. Thus, plaintiff insists that there is a substantial overlap in evidence between the two cases.
The court disagrees. First, as defendants have pointed out, the two cases involve different subsections of the FHA, which presumably means that the evidence necessary to prove plaintiff’s FHA claim in this case will be different from the evidence that was offered in the Cooke case. More importantly, the Cooke case focused on the water issue, which is only one of the issues that plaintiff has raised in its pattern and practice claim in this case. The issues raised by plaintiff in Count II in this case are much broader than the issues that were raised in the Cooke case and thus there is not a substantial overlap of evidence as to the two cases. Because there is not a substantial overlap of evidence, the issues in the two cases are not identical. Because the issues in the two cases are not identical, non-mutual collateral estoppel has no application here.
Because the court declines to apply issue preclusion broadly as to plaintiff’s entire FHA pattern and practice claim, plaintiff would then have the court apply issue preclusion to the factual issues with respect to discrimination in the provision of utilities, the provision of building permits, and CCMO trespass arrests. ““If the court does not grant all the relief requested by [a summary judgment] motion, it may enter an order stating any material fact--including an item of damages or other relief--that is not genuinely in dispute and
-19-

treating the fact as established in the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g); see also, McCoy v. Foss Maritime Co., 442 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1112-13 (W.D. Wash. 2006) (court adopted some factual findings from a prior action but required the plaintiff to “make an individualized showing of his own treatment and injury” and allowed the defendant “to show it acted exceptionally with regard to” the plaintiff).
It is within the court’s discretion to enter an order treating certain facts as established. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 761 F.3d 409, 427 n.15 (5th Cir. 2014) (“The Rule’s use of the word ‘may’, as opposed to ‘shall’, indicates that district courts are not required to enter a separate order under Rule 56(g)”). Although defendants can hardly contest the fact that they violated the FHA as regards the habitability of the Cookes’ property, “[t]he court ... conclude[s] that it is better to leave open for trial facts and issues that may be better illuminated by the trial of related facts that must be tried in any event.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g) advisory committee’s cmt. (2010 amd.). What plaintiff is requesting here still involves issue preclusion and it is the court’s perception that it would be potentially unfair to deprive defendants of the opportunity to defend against plaintiff’s FHA claim in its entirety. If the jury were instructed that defendants are already liable as to some of the FHA issues, the jury may take such an instruction as an invitation to assume that because defendants had engaged in some unlawful conduct, all of defendants’ conduct was unlawful. Moreover, although it is a somewhat minor
-20-

consideration, declining to enter a Rule 56(g) order will avoid the Hildale defendants’ somewhat logical argument that plaintiff should be limited to the scope of the Cooke injunction if defendants are to be bound by the factual findings of the Cooke case.
In sum, non-mutual collateral estoppel does not apply here, and the court declines to enter a separate Rule 56(g) order. Thus, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to defendants’ liability on its FHA claim is denied.
Turning then to the issues of relief as to Count II, the Hildale defendants argue that plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief has been rendered moot by the injunction that was entered in the Cooke case. “Article III’s ‘case-or-controversy’ requirement precludes federal courts from deciding ‘questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.’” Protectmarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen, 752 F.3d 827, 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974)). “‘The central question of all mootness problems is whether changes in the circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief....’” West v. Sec. of Dep’t. of Transp., 206 F.3d 920, 925 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 13A Federal Practice and Procedure § 3533.3 at 268 (1984)). If plaintiff has already been awarded in the Cooke case the FHA injunctive relief it seeks here, there would be no meaningful injunctive relief that this court could award.
In its complaint, plaintiff requests that defendants be enjoined from:
-21-

i. Refusing to negotiate for the sale of housing, denying housing, or otherwise making housing unavailable because of religion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);
ii. Discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling because of religion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); and
iii. Coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with a person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, a right granted or protected by Section 804 of the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617[.]35
In the Cooke case, the court enjoined defendants, for a period of ten years, from
(1) discriminat[ing] because of religion against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the provision of services or facilities in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling; or (2) coerc[ing], intimidat[ing], threaten[ing], interfer[ing] with, or retaliat[ing] against any person in the enjoyment of his or her dwelling because of religion or because that person has asserted rights, or encouraged others to assert their rights, protected by the federal Fair Housing Act or the Arizona Fair Housing Act.[36]
The Hildale defendants argue that because the Cooke injunction is not limited to
preventing discrimination against the specific parties involved in Cooke but rather
precludes discrimination against “any person”, the Cooke injunction provides the same
35Complaint at 17-18, Docket No. 1.
36Amended Judgment and Permanent Injunction at 2, ¶ 7, Case No. 10-cv-8105-PCTJAT, Exhibit A, Hildale Defendants’ Separate Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 549.
-22-

relief that plaintiff has requested in this case. But even if plaintiff’s request for FHA injunctive relief is not moot, the Hildale defendants argue that they should still be granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief under the FHA because plaintiff cannot establish that it is entitled to injunctive relief. “The requirements for the issuance of a permanent injunction are (1) the likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury, and (2) the inadequacy of remedies at law.” G.C. and K.B. Invs., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). The Hildale defendants argue that plaintiff cannot demonstrate that there is a continuing threat that they will violate the FHA because they are prohibited from doing so because of the Cooke injunction, and, the Hildale defendants argue that the Cooke injunction provides an adequate remedy at law.
The Hildale defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s request for FHA injunctive relief is moot is rejected. As discussed above, plaintiff’s FHA claim in this case is broader than the pattern and practice claim in Cooke. Because plaintiff’s FHA claim is considerably broader than what was litigated in Cooke, there may be a need for a broader injunction in this case if plaintiff prevails on its FHA claim. As to the Hildale defendants’ contention that plaintiff cannot prove the need for injunction, that contention is premature. It remains to be seen whether plaintiff can prove such a need. Thus, the Hildale defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Count II injunctive relief is denied.
-23-

Next, defendants argue that plaintiff cannot seek any FHA damages for the sixteen aggrieved persons it has disclosed.37 “The Fair Housing Act allows courts to award damages to persons aggrieved by a defendant’s pattern of discrimination[.]” Balistrieri, 981 F.2d at 935. “In order to establish that a [person] is an ‘Aggrieved Person,’” plaintiff “must demonstrate that [the person] suffered a concrete injury in fact or one that is actual and imminent; that such injury is fairly traceable to [the d]efendants’ allegedly illegal actions; and that it is likely that such injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Savanna Club Worship Service, Inc. v. Savanna Club Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc., 456 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1226 (S.D. Fla. 2005).
Defendants first argue that plaintiff cannot offer at trial any evidence regarding the damages that these aggrieved persons suffered because plaintiff failed to provide any computation of these damages as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires “a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party....” “If a party fails to provide information ... as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information ... on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
37United States’ Eleventh Supplemental Initial Disclosures at 2-5, Exhibit 7, Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 545.
-24-

In its Eleventh Supplemental Initial Disclosure, dated July 3, 2014, plaintiff stated
that it
will be seeking monetary relief for aggrieved persons, ... including their out-of-pocket and economic costs, lost housing opportunities, and emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation. The precise amount needed to compensate aggrieved persons for the emotional distress they suffered will be determined by the jury. The United States continues to evaluate the evidence in this case to determine the identity of aggrieved persons as well as the monetary damage amounts sought on their behalf, and will supplement these responses accordingly.[38]
Plaintiff has not provided defendants any supplemental disclosures as to the damages that
it is seeking on behalf of the 16 identified aggrieved persons and thus defendants argue that
they are left to guess as to what damages plaintiff might be seeking on behalf of the sixteen
aggrieved persons.
As an initial matter, plaintiff argues that defendants’ Rule 26 argument is not timely,
but the authority to which plaintiff cites does not support its argument. And, as defendants
point out, “Rule 37(c)(1) is a ‘self-executing,’ ‘automatic’ sanction designed to provide a
strong inducement for disclosure.” Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644
F.3d 817, 827 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259
F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001)).
38Id. at 31. -25-

Turning then to the merits of defendants’ Rule 26 argument, plaintiff represents that it is only seeking “damages for the aggrieved persons for emotional distress, embarrassment, and humiliation.”39 The court will hold plaintiff to that representation. As to these damages only, the court finds that plaintiff has not violated Rule 26. Such damages are not subject to any mathematical calculation and are for a jury to decide. See Williams v. Trader Pub. Co., 218 F.3d 481, 486 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000) (“Since compensatory damages for emotional distress are necessarily vague and are generally considered a fact issue for the jury, they may not be amenable to the kind of calculation disclosure contemplated by Rule 26(a)(1)(C)”); First v. Kia of El Cajon, Case No. 10–CV–536–DMS (BGS), 2010 WL 3069215, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2010) (citation omitted) (“[w]hile Rule 26 generally requires a party to provide a computation of such damages, emotional distress damages, because of their vague and unspecific nature, are oftentimes not readily amendable to computation”).
Defendants’ reliance on Museum Associates, Ltd. v. Midzor, Case No. CV 10–01042–PHX–NVW, 2012 WL 14026 (D. Ariz. Jan. 4, 2012), is misplaced. That case involved the disclosure (or lack thereof) of medical records and documents to support the plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress damages. Here, there is no suggestion that there are medical or other records which support the emotional distress damage claims of the aggrieved persons that plaintiff has failed to produce. To the extent that plaintiff has such
39United States’ Opposition to Colorado City’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 15, Docket No. 564.
-26-

evidence, plaintiff will not be permitted to offer any such evidence at trial since plaintiff did not timely disclose this evidence to defendants.
Defendants next argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as to ten of the sixteen aggrieved persons because there is no evidence that these ten individuals suffered damages, emotional or otherwise, due to defendants’ conduct. The sixteen persons who plaintiff has identified as aggrieved persons are: Patrick Barlow, Andrew Chatwin, John Cook, Ron and Jinjer Cooke, Ross and Lori Chatwin, Richard Holm, Christopher and Jesseca Jessop, Willie R. Jessop, Ron Rohbock, Jerold Williams, Elizabeth Wayman, Dan Wayman, and Isaac Wyler. Defendants argue that there is no evidence that John Cook, Ross Chatwin, Lori Chatwin, Christopher Jessop, Jesseca Jessop, Willie R. Jessop, Ron Rohbock, Jerold Williams, Elizabeth Wayman, or Isaac Wyler suffered any damages as result of defendants’ alleged violations of the FHA.
The question here is whether plaintiff has any evidence that any of these ten people suffered any emotional distress. “[A] court may not presume emotional distress from the fact of discrimination. A plaintiff must actually prove that he suffers from emotional distress and that the discrimination caused that distress.” Balistrieri, 981 F.2d at 931. “This is not to say, however, that an injured person's testimony can never be sufficient by itself, or in conjunction with the circumstances of the particular case, to establish damages for emotional distress.” Id. at 932.
-27-

As for John Cook, defendants point out that he testified that he had “no knowledge” as to any damages that he was seeking in this case.40 But, plaintiff has come forward with a declaration from John Cook in which he avers that his inability to get a water connection for his residential property caused him to feel “dejected and hurt. I was devastated by [the Cities’] attitude. It was a big blow to me. It was frustrating and egregious, the way they treated me.”41 This declaration creates a question of fact as to whether John Cook suffered emotional distress.
As for Ross and Lori Chatwin, Ross claims that he was falsely arrested by the CCMO in connection with a dispute with his brother over a residence. Ross testified that he believed that he was entitled to monetary damages for his false arrest but that he did not know exactly how much he would be entitled to.42 Plaintiff presents no evidence that suggests that Ross and Lori Chatwin suffered any emotional distress, which are the type of damages plaintiffs may seek on the behalf of aggrieved persons. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Count II damages for Ross and Lori Chatwin. Plaintiff may not request damages on behalf of these aggrieved persons.
40The Deposition of John Cook at 60:7-16, Exhibit 8, Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 545.
41Declaration of John Cook at 2, ¶ 9, Exhibit 39, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565.
42Deposition of Charles (Ross) Chatwin at 136:12-25, Exhibit 9, Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 545.
-28-

As for Christopher and Jesseca Jessop, defendants point out that Jesseca testified
about a 2013 property dispute to which a police officer responded and that she was not
looking to get anything personally out of this case, that she was not looking for money.43
Plaintiff, however, has offered declarations from both Christopher and Jesseca.
Christopher avers that his
family’s experience with the Marshal’s office makes me feel insecure. I was surprised to feel like I cannot truly trust my local police. It causes me concern and worry. I worry about my family, especially my youngest daughter and son. I understand how FLDS Church security operates in Short Creek. My family has been harassed before, and I have no idea what Church security could do to my family if they were ever ordered to. I feel like I could not count on the Marshal’s office in that situation.[44]
Jesseca avers that her “treatment at the hands of the Marshal’s office stressed me out and
made me angry” and that their investigation of a hit-and-run involving her son “made me
furious and frightened. I feel frustrated. Because of the discriminatory treatment I have
experienced with the Marshal’s office I feel like I cannot get real justice where I live.”45
These declarations are sufficient to create questions of fact as to whether the Jessops
43The Deposition of Jesseca Jessop at 83:14-22, Exhibit 10, Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 545.
44Declaration of Christopher Jessop at 1-2, ¶ 4, Exhibit 34, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565.
45Declaration of Jesseca Jessop at 1, ¶ 3 & 2, ¶ 6, Exhibit 35, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565.
-29-

suffered any emotional distress, although it is not entirely clear whether the Jessops’ alleged emotional distress had anything to do with defendants’ alleged violations of the FHA.
As for Willie R. Jessop, plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence suggesting that Willie Jessop suffered any emotional distress as a result of any of the alleged violations of the FHA by defendants. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Count II damages for Willie Jessop. Plaintiff may not request damages on behalf of this aggrieved person.
As for Ron Rohbock, he testified about a 2013 property dispute to which a police officer responded. Rohbock was asked if he was seeking any kind of compensation in this case and he testified that
[i]f there is some compensation I would be glad for it because I am very indigent. I have nothing to show for my 50 years of [what] I would call back breaking slave labor for a religion that I got nothing from. So, yeah, I would ... accept it, yes. But have I sought it? Have I sat down and said this is what I want? No.[46] Defendants argue that this testimony shows that Rohbock does not have any damages against defendants, although he would like compensation from the FLDS church. Plaintiff offers, however, a declaration from Rohbock, in which he avers:
46Deposition of Ron Rohbock at 75:10:16, Exhibit 12, Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 545.
-30-

I am 63 years old. I witnessed my wife break down in tears over how the Marshal’s office has treated us. I felt like the Marshal’s Office blew us off completely when we needed help, including when our property was vandalized. My interactions with the Marshal’s office have caused me stress. For an older couple to have to deal with this kind of discrimination is very upsetting. It makes me concerned and extremely upset to feel like I cannot enjoy my home or trust my local police. The situation has cost me sleep and upset me repeatedly. I feel that my wife and I are at the mercy of police we cannot trust.[47]
This declaration creates a question of fact as to Rohbock’s emotional distress damages.
As for Jerold Williams and Elizabeth Wayman, Jerold testified about the time in 2012
when he was arrested after he entered or attempted to enter a residence where his family
was staying. Jerold was asked if he was seeking any money from this case and he testified
that
I’m letting things come however they do. I have not asked or petitioned for money, no. I’m not saying I would refuse some if it’s a result of it, but I’m saying that I have not petitioned and said that I am owed anything, any kind of damages or anything like that.[48]
Plaintiff, however, offers declarations from Jerold Williams and Elizabeth Wayman.
Wayman avers that her husband’s
47Declaration of Ron Rohbock at 1, ¶ 4, Exhibit 36, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565.
48The Deposition of Jerold Williams at 96:23-97:3, Exhibit 5, Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 545.
-31-

arrest and the events surrounding the arrest had an emotional impact. I felt as rock-bottom emotionally as I could get. My children and grandchildren were horror-struck and running around because we returned to the home & police were summoned. I felt as bad as I have ever felt. I felt that the Marshal’s office, which we knew, turned on us and treated us like vipers because we were no longer members of the FLDS Church. I cried untold tears about [that] night. The event was traumatic and I still feel the effects. I had a hard time for two or three months dealing with emotions caused by that night.[49]
Jerold avers that “[i]t was humiliating to be arrested and hauled away in handcuffs in front
of my own children.”50 He further avers that
I felt betrayed and frustrated that the FLDS Church used the Marshal’s office to keep me from my family. It caused feelings that were hard to deal with. Those feelings are still hard for me to deal with. It was a deep enough hurt that I don’t know how I will recover from it. I am still dealing with it. Putting it in words doesn’t seem to do justice to what I felt.[51]
These declarations create issues of fact as to whether Williams and Wayman suffered
emotional distress.
As for Isaac Wyler, plaintiff offers no evidence that suggests that Wyler suffered any
emotional distress as a result of any alleged violations of the FHA by defendants. Thus,
49Declaration of Elizabeth Wayman at 1, ¶ 2, Exhibit 37, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565.
50Declaration of Jerold Williams at 1, ¶ 3, Exhibit 38, United States’ Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 565.
51Id. at ¶ 4.
-32-

defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Count II damages for Isaac Wyler. Plaintiff may not request damages on behalf of this aggrieved person.
Finally, as to Count II, the Hildale defendants argue that plaintiff’s FHA pattern and practice claim against TCWA and TCP should be dismissed because these entities no longer exist. Plaintiff does not oppose the dismissal of TCP.52 Plaintiff does oppose dismissing TCWA.
TCWA was incorporated as a non-profit corporation in the State of Utah in 1996 for the primary purpose of repaying a debt owed to the Rural Utility Service.53 TCWA entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the Cities to manage, operate, and maintain the Cities’ shared water system and to repay the debt.54 TCWA was dissolved in July 2014.55 Its restated articles of incorporation provide that “[u]pon dissolution ... the assets of TCWA shall be dedicated to an appropriate public agency for purposes similar to those for which TCWA was created.”56 The Hildale defendants contend that the assets of TCWA have been
52United States’ Response to Hildale Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment at 1, n.1., Docket No. 559.
53Articles of Incorporation at 1, Exhibit B, Hildale Defendants’ Separate Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 549.
54Exhibit C, Hildale Defendants’ Separate Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 549. 55Exhibit D, Hildale Defendants’ Separate Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 549. 56Article 5, Restated Articles of Incorporation at 3, Exhibit E, Hildale Defendants’ Separate of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 549.
-33-

returned to the Cities. Because TCWA no longer exists and its liabilities have been absorbed by the Cities, the Hildale defendants argue that if TCWA remains a defendant in this case and plaintiff prevails, plaintiff will be able to recover twice against the Cities, which would be unfairly punitive.
TCWA’s voluntary dissolution does not mean that plaintiff’s FHA claim against TCWA should be dismissed.57 Utah’s Revised Non-Profit Corporation Act provides that “[d]issolution of a nonprofit corporation does not ... abate or suspend a proceeding pending by or against the nonprofit corporation on the effective date of dissolution.” Utah Code § 16-6a-1405(3)(g). Because the dissolution of TCWA took place after plaintiff filed its complaint, its dissolution has no effect on plaintiff’s pending FHA claim. As for the Hildale defendants’ contention that if plaintiff prevails on its FHA claim against TCWA, the Cities will be “fined” twice, it is within the court’s discretion whether civil penalties will be awarded. 42 U.S.C. § 3614(1)(c). The court will not allow plaintiff to recover twice for the same damage or harm.
Secondly, the Hildale defendants argue that TCWA is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s FHA claims because there is no evidence that TCWA engaged in a pattern or practice of religious discrimination. The Hildale defendants’ argument focuses on the 16
57Plaintiff “concedes that its demand for injunctive relief against ... TCWA is rendered moot by [its] dissolution....” United States’ Response to Hildale Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment at 9 n.9, Docket No. 559.
-34-

persons that plaintiff has identified as aggrieved persons. But, as plaintiff points out, these 16 individuals have not brought FHA claims. Rather, plaintiff has a brought a single FHA claim under § 3614(a), alleging that defendants, including TCWA, engaged in a pattern and practice of violating the FHA on the basis of religion. Plaintiff can prevail on its FHA claim against TCWA by either showing that TCWA engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the FHA or that it denied rights granted by the FHA to a group of persons, which denial raises an issue of general public importance. If it establishes that TCWA engaged in a pattern and practice of violating the FHA, then plaintiff may seek civil penalties and/or it may seek to recover damages on behalf of aggrieved persons. In other words, even if none of the aggrieved persons testified that they were harmed by the TCWA’s conduct, plaintiff could still prevail on its claim against TCWA.
As for whether plaintiff may request damages from TCWA on behalf of any of the aggrieved persons, plaintiff does not dispute that the incidents involving Andrew Chatwin, Christopher and Jesseca Jessop, Willie R. Jessop, Ron Rohbock, Jerold Williams, Elizabeth Wayman, and Isaac Wyler had nothing to do with the provision of culinary water and thus it cannot, and will not, seek damages from TCWA for these individuals.58 Plaintiff also states that “it no longer intends to seek monetary damages” for Ron and Jinjer Cooke in
58As discussed above, plaintiff may not seek any Count II damages as to Willie Jessop and Isaac Wyler.
-35-

this case.59 And, as discussed above, plaintiff cannot seek any Count II damages against any defendant on behalf of Ross and Lori Chatwin. The question here then is whether plaintiff can seek damages from TCWA on behalf of Patrick Barlow, John Cook, Richard Holm, and Dan Wayman should plaintiff prevail on its pattern and practice claim in Count II.
The Hildale defendants argue that any damage claims of Patrick Barlow, John Cook, and Richard Holm are moot due to their involvement in the Cooke case. The Cooke judgment required defendants to provide utilities to John Cook and Patrick Barlow,60 and Richard Holm was granted utility connections pursuant to an agreement reached between the parties and he no longer owns the property in question. However, none of these three individuals were awarded emotional distress damages in Cooke. Thus, plaintiff is not precluded from seeking damages from TCWA on behalf of these three individuals in this case, should plaintiff prevail on its Count II FHA claim.
As for Dan Wayman, the Hildale defendants contend that his deposition testimony shows that his only interactions concerning his water connection were with the Cities’
59United States’ Response to Hildale Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment at 16 n.21, Docket No. 559.
60Amended Judgment and Permanent Injunction at 2, ¶ 6, Exhibit A, Hildale Defendants’ Separate Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 549.
-36-

utilities department, and not with TCWA.61 Plaintiff makes no argument in response. Thus, the Hildale defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to damages from TCWA for Dan Wayman. Plaintiff may not seek damages from TCWA for Dan Wayman should plaintiff prevail on its Count II FHA claim against TCWA.
Conclusion Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment62 is denied. Colorado City’s motion for partial summary judgment,63 in which the Hildale defendants join, is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to plaintiff’s request for Count II damages on behalf of Isaac Wyler, Willie R. Jessop, and Ross and Lori Chatwin. Plaintiff is precluded from requesting FHA damages from any defendant on behalf of these aggrieved persons, should plaintiff prevail on its FHA claims in Count II. Colorado City’s motion is otherwise denied. The Hildale defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment64 is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to TCP. Plaintiff’s claims against TCP are dismissed with prejudice. The motion is also granted as to plaintiff’s request for FHA
61Exhibit R, Hildale Defendants’ Separate Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 549. 62Docket No. 541. 63Docket No. 544. 64Docket No. 548.
-37-

damages from TCWA on behalf of Dan Wayman. Plaintiff is precluded from seeking FHA damages from TCWA on behalf of Dan Wayman. The Hildale defendants’ motion is otherwise denied.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 17th day of June, 2015. /s/ H. Russel Holland United States District Judge
-38-

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 15

!\,L.FilEP
_REcEIVED

LODGED COPY

1
MAR 0 7 201&-

2

CL.ERK U $ DISTRIOT COUAT

CI&T~ICT Ofl ARIZONA

3

IV.

OEIIUTY

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 United States of America,

10

Plaintiff,

11 vs.

12 Town of Colorado City, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

) CV-12-08123-PCT-HRH
)
)
~
) VERDICT
) ) (REDACTED)
)
~

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 15
VERDICT FORM 1
(Use only ifyoufind that the Colorado City and Hi/dale City Marshal's Offzce
a did engage in pattern.or practice ofunconstitutionalpolicing under 42 u.s. c.
§ 14141 that violated the First Amendment ofthe United States Constitution.)
We, the Jury, duly empaneled ~d sworn upon our oath, find by a preponderance of
ani the evidence that the Colorado City Hildale City Marshal's Office did engage in a
pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 that violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Foreperson

Date

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

- 1-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 15

VERDICT FORM 2

(Use only ifyou find that the Colorado City and Hi/dale City Marshal's Office
did not engage in a pattern or practice ofunconstitutionalpolicing under 42 U.S.C § 14141 that violated the First Amendment ofthe United States Constitution.)

We, the Jwy, duly empaneled and sworn upon our oath, fmd by a preponderance of the evidence that the Colorado City and Hildale City Marshal's Office did not engage in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 that violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Foreperson

,
, \
Date

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

-2-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 15

VERDICT FORM 3

(Use only ifyou find that the Colorado City and Hi/dale City Marshal's Offzce
did engage in a pattern or practice ofunconstitutionalpolicing under 42 U.S.C § 14141 that violated the Fourth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution.)

We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn upon our oath, find by a preponderance of the evidence that the Colorado City and Hildale City Marshal's Office did engage in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 that violated the · Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution in the following respects (check only those that apply):

Unreasonable search ofproperty

X

Unreasonable seizure ofproperty

X

Unreasonable seizure of a person

)(

Arrest made without probable cause

Unreasonable investigatory stop

Use of excessive force in making a lawful arrest or other

seizure or detention

·~
Foreperson

J/7/lb
Date

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

-3-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 15
VERDICT FORM 4
(Use only ifyou find that the Colorado City and Hi/dale City Marshal's Office
did not engage in a pattern or practice ofunconstitutionalpolicing under 42 U.S. C § 14141 that violated the Fourth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution.)
We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn upon our oath, find by a preponderance of the evidence that the Colorado City and Hildale City Marshal's Office did not engage in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 that violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Foreperson

Date

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

-4-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 15
VERDICT FORM 5
(Use only ifyou find that the Colorado City and Hi/dale City Marshal's Office
did engage in a pattern or practice ofunconstitutionalpolicing under 42 U.S.C § 14141 that violated the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution.)
· ·We, the Jury, ·duly empaneled and sworn upon our oath, find by a preponderance of the evidence that the Colorado City and Hildale City Marshal's Office did engage in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Foreperson

Date

·

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

-5-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 15
VERDICT FORM 6
(Use only ifyou find that the Colorado City and Hi/dale City Marshal's Office
did not engage in apattern or practice ofunconstitutionalpolicing under 42 U.S.C § 14141 that violated the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution.)
We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn upon our oath, find by a preponderance of the evidence that the Colorado City and Hildale City Marshal's Office did not engage in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution.

Foreperson

Date

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

-6-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 8 of 15

VERDICT FORM 7

(Use only ifyou find for the United States and aeainst Colorado City regarding
the federal Fair Housing Act)

We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn upon our oath, find by a preponderance of

the evidence that the Town of Colorado City, Arizona, engaged in a pattern or practice of

conduct that violated the federal Fair Housing Act by (check only those that apply):

)(

making housing unavailable or denying housing

opportunities to individuals because of religion.

X

discriminating against non-FLDS individuals in the terms,

conditions, or privileges ofthe sale or rental of a dwelling, or

in the provision of services or facilities in connection

therewith, because ofreligion.

>(

coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with an

individual in the exercise or enjoyment of the right to equal

housing opportunities or the right to equal treatment in the

terms, conditions, privileges, and services in connection with

housing, or on account of that individual having aided or

encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of

those rights.

~
Foreperson

3/7 I IV:>
Date

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

-7-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 9 of 15
VERDICT FORM 8
(Use only ifyoufind arainst the United States and[or Colorado City regarding
the federal Fair Housing Act.)
We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn upon our oath, fmd by a preponderance of the evidence that the Town of Colorado City, Arizona, did not engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that violated the federal Fair Housing Act.

Foreperson

Date

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

- 8-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 10 of 15

VERDICT FORM 9

(Use only ifyouflnd for the United States and arainst Hi/dale City regarding the federal Fair Housing Act.)

We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn upon our oath, fmd by a preponderance of

the evidence that Hildale City, Utah, engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that

violated the federal Fair Housing Act by (check only those that apply):

X

making housing unavailable or denying housing opportunities

to individuals because of religion.

Y

discriminating against non-FLDS individuals in the terms,

conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or

in the provision of services or facilities in connection

therewith, because ~f religion.

coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with an

individual in the exercise or enjoyment of the right to equal

housing opportunities or the right to equal treatment in the

terms, conditions, privileges, and services in connection with

housing, or on account of that individual having aided or .

encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of

those rights.

Foreperson

Date

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

-9-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 11 of 15
VERDICT FORM 10
(Use only ifyou find arainst the United States and for Hildale City regarding the
federal Fair Housing Act.)
We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn upon our oath, find by a preponderance of the evidence that Hildale City, Utah, did not engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that violated the federal Fair Housing Act.

Foreperson

Date

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

- 10-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 12 of 15

VERDICT FORM 11

(Use only ifyou find for the United States and arainst Twin City Water
Authority regarding the federal Fair Housing Act.)

We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn upon our oath, find by a preponderance of

the evidence that Twin City Water Authority engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct

that violated the federal Fair Housing Act by (check only those that apply):

K

making housing unavailable or denying housing

opportunities to individuals because of religion.

discriminating against non-FLDS individuals in the terms,

conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or

in the provision of serv~ces or facilities in conne~tion

therewith, because ofreligion.

)(

coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with an

individual in the exercise or enjoyment of the right to equal

housing opportunities or the right to equal treatment in the

terms, conditions, privileges, and services in connection with

housing, or on account of that individual having aided or

encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of

those rights.

Foreperson

3/711~
Date

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

- 11-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 13 of 15
VERDICT FORM 12
(Use only ifyou find arainst the United States and for Twin City Water
Authority regarding the Federal Fair Housing Act.)
We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn upon our oath, find by a preponderance the evidence that Twin City Water Authority did not engage in a pattern or practice conduct that violated the federal Fair Housing Act.

Foreperson

Date

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

- 12-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 14 of 15

VERDICT FORM: 13

(Use only. ifyoufind for .the United States and arainst Colorado City, Hi/dale
City, and/or Twin City Water Authority regarding the Federal Fair Housing Act)

We, the Jury, duly empaneled and sworn upon our oath, award the following damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment to the following aggrieved persons due to Colorado City's, Hildale City's, and/or Twin City Water Authority's pattern or practice of conduct that violated the federal Fair Housing Act.

Patrick Barlow

$ 100 .I 00.0

The following defendants are responsible for these total

damages to Patrick Barlow (check only those that apply):

X

Colorado Cjty

Twin City Water A\lthority

John Cook

$ IJ 000 1 000

. The following defendants are responsible for these total

damages to John Cook (check only those that apply):

X

Hildale City

X

Twin City Water Authority

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

-13-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 932 Filed 03/07/16 Page 15 of 15

Richard Holm

The following defendants are responsible for these total

damages to Richard Holm (check only those that apply):

X

Colorado City and Hildale C~ty

Christopher Jessop

$ I , 0 00 .) 0 0 0

The following defendants are responsible for these total

damages to Christopher Jessop (check only those that apply):

X

Colorado City and Hildale CiW

Eliza.beth Wayman

$ tO,~ 00 0

The following defendants are responsible for these total

damages to Elizabeth Wayman (check only those that apply):

X

Colorado City and Hildale City

Jerrod Williams

$ 5.; oo 0

The following defendants are responsible for these total

damages to Jerrod Williams (check only those that apply):

x

Colorado City and Hildale C~ty

Foreperson

Date

United States v. Town of Colorado City

Case No. 3:12-cv-8123

- 14-

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 937-1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 7

1

Steven H. Rosenbaum (NY Bar #1901958) Sameena Shina Majeed (DC Bar # 491725)

2 R. Tamar Hagler (CA Bar #189441)

Christy E. Lopez (DC Bar #473612) 3 Eric W. Treene (NY Bar #2568343)

4 Sean R. Keveney (TX Bar #24033862) Matthew J. Donnelly (IL Bar #6281308)

5 Emily M. Savner (NY Bar #5214358)

6

Sharon I. Brett (NY Bar #5090279) United States Department of Justice

7 Civil Rights Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 8 Washington, DC 20530

9 Phone:

(202) 514-4838

Facsimile: (202) 514-1116

10 E-mail: Sean.Keveney@usdoj.gov

11 Attorneys for the United States

12

13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

14

15
United States,
16
17
v.
18

Plaintiff;

No. 3:12cv8123-HRH

19 Town of Colorado City, Arizona, et al.,
20
Defendants.
21

22

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

23
I. INTRODUCTION
24
1. On June 21, 2012, the United States filed suit against the Town of Colorado
25

26 City, Arizona, the City of Hildale, Utah, Twin City Power, and Twin City Water

27 Authority, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”).
28

1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 937-1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 7

1

2. One of the United States’ claims was brought under the Fair Housing Act,

2 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. Specifically, the United States alleged that there are persons

3 who are aggrieved as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i) and who have suffered damages as a

4
result of Defendants’ conduct.

5

6

3. The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction over this action under

7 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 3614. This Agreement is effective upon

8 execution by a representative of each party and approval and adoption by the Court. For

9
purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “entry of this Agreement” shall refer to the date on
10
which the Court approves and adopts this Agreement as an Order of the Court.
11

12

4. This Settlement Agreement memorializes the settlement terms reached by

13 the Parties and presented to and approved by the Court on March 7, 2016 (Trial Tr. 5078-
14
84, 5093:17-21). The parties agree that this Settlement Agreement is a fair, reasonable,
15
and adequate resolution of all the United States’ monetary and civil penalty claims in this
16
17 case.

18 II. COMPENSATION FOR AGGRIEVED PERSONS
19
5. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Agreement, the United States will
20
obtain a signed release in the form of Appendix B of all claims, legal or equitable, that
21
22 each aggrieved person listed in Appendix A might have against the Defendants and notify

23 counsel for the Defendants that the United States has received the signed releases.

24

6. The Defendants agree to deliver to the United States checks made payable to

25

each aggrieved person for the amounts listed in Appendix A within thirty (30) days of
26

27 receiving notification from the United States that the United States has obtained signed

28 release forms.

2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 937-1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 3 of 7

1

7. Counsel for the United States shall thereafter distribute payment to the

2 aggrieved persons and provide copies of the signed release forms to counsel for the

3 Defendants.
4
8. Should any of the aggrieved persons listed in Appendix A refuse to sign the
5
6 release of claims, that individual’s share of the total settlement amount shall be

7 redistributed to the remaining individual aggrieved persons in amounts to be determined

8 by the United States in its sole discretion. If within sixty (60) days of the entry of this
9
Agreement, any aggrieved person listed in Appendix A refuses to sign the release of
10
claims, the United States shall file a revised Appendix A with the Court. Within thirty
11
12 (30) days of Defendants’ receipt of the notification that the United States has obtained

13 signed release forms of the remaining aggrieved persons and the revised Appendix A,
14
Defendants and the United States shall proceed with payment procedures as provided in
15
paragraphs 6 and 7.
16
17 III. CIVIL PENALTY

18

9. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Agreement, each Defendant shall

19
separately pay $55,000 to the United States Treasury as a civil penalty pursuant to 42
20
U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C) to vindicate the public interest. The payment shall be in the form
21

22 of an electronic funds transfer pursuant to written instructions to be provided by the

23 United States.

24
IV. COSTS OF LITIGATION
25
10. All parties shall be responsible for their own attorney’s fees and costs,
26
27 except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.

28

3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 937-1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 4 of 7

1 Dated: April 18, 2016
2
For the United States:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Special Litigation Section

SAMEENA SHINA MAJEED Acting Chief Housing and Civil Enforcement Section

R. TAMAR HAGLER CHRISTY E. LOPEZ Deputy Chiefs

ERIC W. TREENE Special Counsel

/s/ Emily M. Savner

SEAN R. KEVENEY

MATTHEW J. DONNELLY

EMILY M. SAVNER

SHARON I. BRETT

Attorneys

United States Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Phone:

(202) 353-4081

Facsimile: (202) 514-1116

E-mail: Emily.savner@usdoj.gov

4

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 937-1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 5 of 7

1 For Defendant Town of Colorado City:

2

GRAIF BARRETT & MATURA, P.C.

3

By: /s/ Jeffrey C. Matura

4

Jeffrey C. Matura

Melissa J. England

5

Asha Sebastian

6

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004

7

Attorneys for Defendant Town of

Colorado City, Arizona
8

9
For Defendants City of Hildale and Twin City Water Authority, Inc.:
10
DURHAM JONES & PINEGAR, P.C.
11

12

By: /s/ R. Blake Hamilton

R. Blake Hamilton

13

Ashley Gregson

Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C.

14

111 East Broadway, Suite 900

15

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Attorneys for Defendants City of Hildale,

16

Utah, Twin City Water Authority, and

17

Twin City Power

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 937-1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 6 of 7

1

APPENDIX A

2
1. Patrick Barlow - $173,125
3
2. John Cook - $173,125
4
3. Christopher Jessop - $173,125 5 4. Jerold Nathan Williams - $173,125 6 5. Elizabeth Wayman - $50,000
7 6. Richard Holm - $173,125
8 7. Patrick Pipkin - $173,125
9 8. Isaac Wyler - $173,125

10 9. Guy Timpson - $173,125

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 937-1 Filed 04/18/16 Page 7 of 7

1

APPENDIX B

FULL AND FINAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS
2

3
In consideration for the parties’ Settlement Agreement entered into in the case of
4
United States v. Town of Colorado City., et al., Civil Action No. 12-cv-01823 (D. Ariz.),
5
as approved by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and in
6
consideration for the payment of $____________, I, _________________________, do 7 hereby fully release and forever discharge the Town of Colorado City, the City of Hildale, 8 and Twin City Water Authority, Inc., along with their insurers, attorneys, related 9 companies, principals, predecessors, successors, assigns, affiliates, partners, directors,
10 officers, agents, employers, shareholders, subsidiaries, employees, former employees,
11 heirs, executors, and administrators and any persons acting under their respective direction
12 or control from any and all fair housing claims set forth or related to the facts at issue in
13 the litigation referenced above.

14
I also acknowledge that I have been informed that I may review the terms of this
15
Release with an attorney of my choosing, and to the extent that I have not obtained legal
16
advice, I voluntarily and knowingly waive my right to do so.
17

18

I waive any claims I may have against the United States, the Department of Justice,

19 or its agents or employees, arising out of this action. This General Release constitutes the

20 entire agreement between Defendants and me, without exception or exclusion.

21

22

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

23

24

Executed this _____ day of __________________, 20___.

25

_________________________________

Signature

26

27

_________________________________ Print Name

28

7

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 938 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs.

)

)

TOWN OF COLORADO CITY, ARIZONA; )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

No. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division)

O R D E R Approval of Settlement Agreement By oral agreement placed on the record on March 7, 2016, plaintiff and defendants Town of Colorado City, Arizona, City of Hildale, Utah, Twin City Power, and Twin City Water Authority, Inc., agreed upon a settlement of the monetary aspects of plaintiff’s Fair Housing Act Claim, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. That settlement agreement has now been reduced to writing, a complete copy of which settlement agreement is appended to this order. The settlement agreement is approved and adopted by the court as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of all of the plaintiff’s monetary and civil penalty claims in this case. The parties shall proceed as agreed with the funding of the settlement agreement. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 19th day of April, 2016.

/s/ H. Russel Holland United States District Judge

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 5

1 Steven H. Rosenbaum (NY Bar #1901958)

Jonathan M. Smith (DC Bar #396578) 2 R. Tamar Hagler (CA Bar #189441)

Christy E. Lopez (DC Bar #473612) 3 Eric W. Treene (NY Bar #2568343)

Sean R. Keveney (TX Bar #24033862) 4 Jessica C. Crockett (NY Bar #4694972)

Matthew J. Donnelly (IL Bar #6281308) 5 Attorneys

United States Department of Justice 6 Civil Rights Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 7 Washington, DC 20530

Phone:

(202) 305-4838

8 Facsimile: (202) 514-1116

E-mail: sean.keveney@usdoj.gov
9

Attorneys for the United States
10

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

12

13
14 United States,

15

Plaintiff;

16

v.

17
Town of Colorado City, Arizona, et al.,
18

19

Defendants.

No. 3:12cv8123-HRH
JOINT STATUS REPORT CONCERNING ALTERED POLICE REPORTS

20

21

On November 26, 2014, this Court ordered: “Counsel for the Town of Colorado

22 City and plaintiff’s counsel shall confer and, on or before January 5, 2015, provide the

23 court with an updated status report concerning the altered police reports.” Order at 4, ECF

24 No. 537. Pursuant to that Order, Colorado City and the United States provide the

25 following status report:

26

On December 1, 2015, Colorado City informed the United States that it was

27 awaiting a price quotation from In-Synch Systems to write a new program and to complete 28 the requested electronic search of the database of police reports that the Colorado City

1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 5
Marshal’s Office had provided to In-Synch Systems. See Correspondence from Jeffrey
1
C. Matura, counsel for Colorado City, to Matthew Donnelly, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Dec. 1,
2
2014) (Ex. 1). On December 15, 2014, the United States asked Colorado City to provide
3
an update on its “efforts to identify deleted or altered police reports.” See Correspondence
4
from Jessica Crockett, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Jeffrey C. Matura, counsel for Colorado
5
City (Dec. 15, 2014) (Ex. 2). Colorado City responded the same day and said that it was 6 “still waiting to receive a quote from Kirk Farra at In-Synch Systems to complete the 7 requested work.” See Correspondence from Jeffrey C. Matura, counsel for Colorado City, 8 to Jessica Crockett, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Dec. 15, 2014) (Ex. 3). On December 27, 2014, 9 Colorado City provided another update to the United States regarding its discussions with
10 In-Synch Systems, explained potential issues related to cost and scope that In-Synch
11 Systems had identified with the requested search, and asked to discuss with the United 12 States “a reasonable way to limit the scope of [In-Synch Systems’] search.” See 13 Correspondence from Jeffrey C. Matura to the United States (Dec. 27, 2014 to Dec. 31, 14 2014) (Ex. 4). The United States responded on December 29, 2014 and stated that it will 15 not agree to limit the search “in any way that creates a risk that the search will not capture
the full universe of potentially altered reports,” but offered to have personnel from the
16
Civil Rights Division Litigation Support Section participate in a conversation with
17
Colorado City and In-Synch Systems in an effort better to understand any proposed
18
limitations on the search. See Correspondence from Sean Keveney, U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
19
to Jeffrey C. Matura, counsel for Colorado City (Dec. 29, 2014) (Ex. 5). That 20 conversation is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, January 6, 2015, after which the 21 Parties expect to be in a position to report to the Court: (1) that they have reached an 22 agreement on the cost, nature, and scope of In-Synch Systems’ search; (2) that the Parties 23 have agreed upon an alternative arrangement; or (3) that the Parties are at an impasse
24 regarding the cost, nature, or scope of the electronic search for altered or deleted police
25 reports.
26
27
28
2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 5

1 2
FOR THE UNITED STATES:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 FOR COLORADO CITY:
22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respectfully submitted,

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section
R. TAMAR HAGLER CHRISTY E. LOPEZ Deputy Chiefs ERIC W. TREENE Special Counsel

/s/ Sean R. Keveney

SEAN R. KEVENEY

JESSICA C. CROCKETT

MATTHEW J. DONNELLY

Attorneys

United States Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Phone:

(202) 514-4838

Facsimile: (202) 514-1116

E-mail: matthew.donnelly@usdoj.gov

/s/ Jeffrey C. Matura with permission Jeffrey C. Matura Asha Sebastian Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Attorneys for Defendant Town of Colorado City

3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556 Filed 01/05/15 Page 4 of 5

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I certify that on January 5, 2015, I caused a copy of the foregoing Joint Status

Report Concerning Altered Police Reports to be sent via the Court’s ECF system to the

3 following:

4

Jeffrey C. Matura

5

Asha Sebastian

Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C.

6

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

7

Attorneys for Defendant Town of Colorado City

8
R. Blake Hamilton

9

Ashley M. Gregson

Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C.

10

111 East Broadway, Suite 900

11

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Attorneys for Defendants City of Hildale, Twin City Water Authority, and Twin

12

City Power

13

14

15

/s/ Sean R. Keveney SEAN R. KEVENEY

16

Attorney for the United Sta

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556 Filed 01/05/15 Page 5 of 5
5

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 15
Joint Status Report Concerning Altered Police Reports: Exhibits 1-5

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 15
Exhibit 1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 15

Keveney, Sean R (CRT)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Jeff Matura [JMatura@gbmlawpc.com] Monday, December 01, 2014 5:49 PM Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com) Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Keveney, Sean R (CRT) RE: SJ/Depos

Matt:
I hope you had a good Thanksgiving holiday. I spoke to Blake, and here are the defendants’ thoughts on the issues you raise:
1. We are agreeable to a deadline of December 22 for dispositive motions. We still read the Court’s scheduling order differently, but are willing to agree on this date. Let me know how you want to address this issue with the Court. I assume a joint motion and proposed order is easiest.
2. Regarding the continued depositions of Officer Cooke and Vergel Steed, the defendants have decided to file an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Judge Holland’s recent orders. The deadline to file the notice of appeal is late December. Therefore, until the appellate process is complete, we should hold off on scheduling these depositions.
3. Regarding the police reports, my last communication with In-Synch Systems was via e-mail on November 24. That email was attached as an exhibit to Colorado City’s reply, and it stated that In-Synch Systems hopes to have a quote within a week or so to complete the requested work. I don’t have any further update as of now, but when I do hear more, I’ll let you know.
If you want to discuss any of these issues, please give me a call.
Thanks.

Jeffrey C. Matura Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Direct: 602-792-5721 Fax: 602-792-5710 E-Mail: jmatura@gbmlawpc.com

This electronic message and any attachments contain information that is or may be legally privileged, confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure. The message and attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me immediately so that any mistake in transmission can be corrected, and then delete the message and any attachments from your system.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with IRS requirements, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (b) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

From: Donnelly, Matthew (CRT) [mailto:Matthew.Donnelly@usdoj.gov] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:56 PM To: Jeff Matura; Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com) Cc: Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Subject: SJ/Depos 
1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 4 of 15
HeyJeff–DefendantsaskedforanextensionoftheDecember15SummaryJudgmentdeadline.ReminderthatI’mstill waitingtohearonourofferofa1weekfilingdateextension(toMonday,December22).I’malsowaitingtohearwhen DefendantscanattendtheredeposofOfficerCookeandMr.SteedinSt.George;asIindicatedpreviouslyIthinkwecan takethembothinone(long)day,butweshouldtakethemASAP.  Justareminder,IunderstandBlakewasatconferencewhenwespokeandlastweekhadaholiday.Butweshouldget thisnaileddownprettyearlythisweek.  Also–atsomepointsoonweneedtohavethemeet/conferregardingthepolicereports.  THX
2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 5 of 15
Exhibit 2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 6 of 15

Keveney, Sean R (CRT)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Crockett, Jessica (CRT) Monday, December 15, 2014 10:53 AM Jeff Matura; 'Hamilton, R. Blake' Keveney, Sean R (CRT); Donnelly, Matthew (CRT) Colorado City

Jeff,  IsthereanupdateregardingColoradoCity'seffortstoidentifydeletedoralteredpolicereports?Weunderstandthat youareincommunicationwithInͲSynchSystemsandhaveaskedittoprovidesoftwarethatwillenableColoradoCityto complywiththeCourt'sordersonthisissue.WeexpectthatthesoftwareprogramColoradoCityreceivestobeableto dothefollowing:(1)identifyallalteredordeletedreports;(2)showtheprecisealterationsordeletionssothatthe UnitedStatescanattempttorecreatetheoriginalreports;and(3)showwhomadethealterationsandwhen.Wealso requestthatColoradoCity’sproductionofthisinformationbeinnativeformat.Pleaseletusknowbytheendofthis weekthestatusofthisissue.  Thanks,  Jessica
  Jessica Clarke Crockett Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Housing & Civil Enforcement Section Phone: (202) 305-4013 Fax: (202) 514-1116
United States Mail Address 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530
Federal Express & Hand-Delivery Address 1800 G Street, N.W. Suite 7002, CRT/HCE Washington, D.C. 20006 

1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 7 of 15
Exhibit 3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 8 of 15

Keveney, Sean R (CRT)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Jeff Matura [JMatura@gbmlawpc.com] Monday, December 15, 2014 2:42 PM Crockett, Jessica (CRT); 'Hamilton, R. Blake' Keveney, Sean R (CRT); Donnelly, Matthew (CRT) RE: Colorado City

Jessica:
To follow-up on our call today, and in response to your below e-mail, I am still waiting to receive a quote from Kirk Farra at In-Synch Systems to complete the requested work. I sent him a follow-up e-mail today. I also let him know about the Court’s January 5, 2015 deadline to submit a status update. When I hear back from Kirk, I’ll let you know.
Thanks.

Jeffrey C. Matura Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Direct: 602-792-5721 Fax: 602-792-5710 E-Mail: jmatura@gbmlawpc.com

This electronic message and any attachments contain information that is or may be legally privileged, confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure. The message and attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me immediately so that any mistake in transmission can be corrected, and then delete the message and any attachments from your system.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with IRS requirements, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (b) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

From: Crockett, Jessica (CRT) [mailto:Jessica.Crockett@usdoj.gov] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:53 AM To: Jeff Matura; 'Hamilton, R. Blake' Cc: Keveney, Sean R (CRT); Donnelly, Matthew (CRT) Subject: Colorado City  Jeff,  IsthereanupdateregardingColoradoCity'seffortstoidentifydeletedoralteredpolicereports?Weunderstandthat youareincommunicationwithInͲSynchSystemsandhaveaskedittoprovidesoftwarethatwillenableColoradoCityto complywiththeCourt'sordersonthisissue.WeexpectthatthesoftwareprogramColoradoCityreceivestobeableto dothefollowing:(1)identifyallalteredordeletedreports;(2)showtheprecisealterationsordeletionssothatthe UnitedStatescanattempttorecreatetheoriginalreports;and(3)showwhomadethealterationsandwhen.Wealso requestthatColoradoCity’sproductionofthisinformationbeinnativeformat.Pleaseletusknowbytheendofthis weekthestatusofthisissue.  Thanks,  Jessica
1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 9 of 15
  Jessica Clarke Crockett Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Housing & Civil Enforcement Section Phone: (202) 305-4013 Fax: (202) 514-1116 United States Mail Address 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Federal Express & Hand-Delivery Address 1800 G Street, N.W. Suite 7002, CRT/HCE Washington, D.C. 20006 
2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 10 of 15
Exhibit 4

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 11 of 15

Keveney, Sean R (CRT)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Jeff Matura [JMatura@gbmlawpc.com] Saturday, December 27, 2014 6:44 PM Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com) Colorado City adv. United States / In-Synch Systems Update

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Follow up Flagged

All:
I spoke to Kirk Farra at In-Synch Systems last week and want to provide you with an update. Mr. Farra relayed the following information regarding the work we have asked him to complete:
1. Neither Colorado City nor In-Synch Systems has the ability to search the Marshal’s Department’s database to obtain the information requested. In-Synch Systems must therefore write a new program to search the database and run a report.
2. We asked In-Synch Systems to run a report to show “every change made to every call and case report from the Colorado City Marshal’s Department from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013” and to show on this report “each change made, who made the change, and the time of the change.”
3. According to Mr. Farra, to write the new program, run the search, and then check the search results for quality control would cost “at least $70,000” because the search request is not something the database is intended to run, is not a normal search request that In-Synch Systems receives from its customers, and would require significant employee time to complete.
4. According to Mr. Farra, the search parameters are too broad. He estimates that the search would result in a report that includes “millions” of pages.
Based upon these issues, Mr. Farra asked me to limit the scope of the search. He suggested limiting the timeframe of the search or limiting the search to a specific officer(s), incident(s), or report(s). I would like to set-up a time to talk to you about these issues and see if we can agree upon a reasonable way to limit the scope of the search.
I am out of the office on Monday and Tuesday, but back on Wednesday. Let me know if you are free then. If not, I am also free on Friday or the following Monday, which the day the update to the Court is due.
Thanks.

Jeffrey C. Matura Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Direct: 602-792-5721 Fax: 602-792-5710 E-Mail: jmatura@gbmlawpc.com

This electronic message and any attachments contain information that is or may be legally privileged, confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure. The message and attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me immediately so that any mistake in transmission can be corrected, and then delete the message and any attachments from your system.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with IRS requirements, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (b) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 12 of 15

2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 13 of 15
Exhibit 5

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 14 of 15

Keveney, Sean R (CRT)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Monday, December 29, 2014 11:35 AM Jeff Matura; Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Hayes, Chris (CRT) Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com) RE: Colorado City adv. United States / In-Synch Systems Update

Mr. Matura,
The United States will not agree that the scope of In-Synch Systems’ search should be limited in any way that creates a risk that the search will not capture the full universe of potentially altered reports. In fact, we do not agree that any search should be limited to the period January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2013. As you know, at least one report was altered as late as December 2013. The United States continues to be unable to identify what reports were altered, how they were altered or deleted, which officers or city employees were responsible for the alterations, or the nature of the alterations. Limiting the scope of In-Synch’s search therefore poses a significant risk that the search will not fully capture all alterations or deletions, leaving the United States in the same position it has been in since this issue first arose. Given (1) that alterations or deletions were occurring until at least December of 2013, and (2) that this problem is one created by the CCMO’s misconduct, the United States should not be required to bear that risk.
We are happy to participate in a call with Mr. Farra so that the United States can better understand what In-Synch is proposing and how the search would be run. We would also like to have the United States’ litigation support personnel participate in that conversation. Finally, we wish to ensure that the search produces manageable results. Given that this problem was of Colorado City’s making, the United States should not be put in a position to have to review “millions” of pages to identify material alterations or deletions. The United States can be available for a call on Friday, January 2, 2014.
Regards,
Sean Keveney

From: Jeff Matura [mailto:JMatura@gbmlawpc.com] Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 6:44 PM To: Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Cc: Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com) Subject: Colorado City adv. United States / In-Synch Systems Update  All:
I spoke to Kirk Farra at In-Synch Systems last week and want to provide you with an update. Mr. Farra relayed the following information regarding the work we have asked him to complete:
1. Neither Colorado City nor In-Synch Systems has the ability to search the Marshal’s Department’s database to obtain the information requested. In-Synch Systems must therefore write a new program to search the database and run a report.
2. We asked In-Synch Systems to run a report to show “every change made to every call and case report from the Colorado City Marshal’s Department from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013” and to show on this report “each change made, who made the change, and the time of the change.”
3. According to Mr. Farra, to write the new program, run the search, and then check the search results for quality control would cost “at least $70,000” because the search request is not something the database is intended to run, is not a normal search request that In-Synch Systems receives from its customers, and would require significant employee time to complete.
1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 556-1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 15 of 15
4. According to Mr. Farra, the search parameters are too broad. He estimates that the search would result in a report that includes “millions” of pages. Based upon these issues, Mr. Farra asked me to limit the scope of the search. He suggested limiting the timeframe of the search or limiting the search to a specific officer(s), incident(s), or report(s). I would like to set-up a time to talk to you about these issues and see if we can agree upon a reasonable way to limit the scope of the search. I am out of the office on Monday and Tuesday, but back on Wednesday. Let me know if you are free then. If not, I am also free on Friday or the following Monday, which the day the update to the Court is due. Thanks. Jeffrey C. Matura Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Direct: 602-792-5721 Fax: 602-792-5710 E-Mail: jmatura@gbmlawpc.com
This electronic message and any attachments contain information that is or may be legally privileged, confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure. The message and attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me immediately so that any mistake in transmission can be corrected, and then delete the message and any attachments from your system. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with IRS requirements, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (b) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

2

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 15

1 Steven H. Rosenbaum (NY Bar #1901958)

Jonathan M. Smith (DC Bar #396578) 2 R. Tamar Hagler (CA Bar #189441)

Christy E. Lopez (DC Bar #473612) 3 Eric W. Treene (NY Bar #2568343)

Sean R. Keveney (TX Bar #24033862) 4 Jessica C. Crockett (NY Bar #4694972)

Matthew J. Donnelly (IL Bar #6281308) 5 Attorneys

United States Department of Justice 6 Civil Rights Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 7 Washington, DC 20530

Phone:

(202) 305-4838

8 Facsimile: (202) 514-1116

E-mail: sean.keveney@usdoj.gov
9

Attorneys for the United States
10

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

12

13
14 United States,

15

Plaintiff;

16

v.

17
Town of Colorado City, Arizona, et al.,
18

19

Defendants.

No. 3:12cv8123-HRH
SECOND JOINT STATUS REPORT CONCERNING ALTERED POLICE REPORTS

20

21

On January 16, 2015, this Court ordered: “Plaintiff and Colorado City will please

22 provide the court with an updated states report on [efforts to retrieve the police reports in

23 question] on or before February 6, 2015.” Order, ECF No. 558. Pursuant to that Order,

24 Colorado City and the United States provide the following status report:

25 The United States’ Position:

26

Since May 9, 2014, the United States has been engaged in an effort to determine

27 how many CCMO reports were altered prior to production to the United States and how 28 they were altered. See Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence (May 9, 2014),

1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 15

ECF No. 353. See Order at 11, ECF No. 438 (“The evidence also suggests that some
1
police reports were materially altered prior to being produced.”); id. at 20 (“Colorado City
2
shall provide plaintiff with the list of altered police reports and how they were altered, or
3
copies of the unaltered reports, on or before August 18, 2014.”). Although Colorado City
4
could not provide the requested information, in November 2014, it became apparent that a
5
third-party electronic database provider, In-Synch Systems, might be able to. See Order at 6 3, ECF No. 537 (“[T]he court’s unspoken purpose from the beginning has been to obtain
7 discovery of unaltered police reports or information as to what changes were made in
8 police reports.”). This Court, therefore, declined to sanction Colorado City and instead

9 directed the “Town of Colorado City [to] proceed with its ongoing efforts to recover

10 unaltered reports or data showing what changes were made in reports.” Id. at 4.

11

On December 1, 2015, Colorado City informed the United States that it was

12 awaiting a price quotation from In-Synch Systems to write a software program that would

13 enable In-Synch Systems to search its database of CCMO reports and provide unaltered
14 versions of CCMO police reports. See Joint Status Report Concerning Altered Police
15 Reports at 1, ECF No. 556. On December 27, 2014, Colorado City explained potential issues related to the cost and scope of In-Synch System’s search and asked to discuss with
16
the United States “a reasonable way to limit the scope of [In-Synch Systems’] search.”
17
See id. The Parties agreed to confer with In-Synch Systems and reported to the Court that
18
following that conference, the Parties expected “to be in a position to report to the Court:
19
(1) that they have reached an agreement on the cost, nature, and scope of In-Synch 20 Systems’ search; (2) that the Parties have agreed upon an alternative arrangement; or (3)
21 that the Parties are at an impasse regarding the cost, nature, or scope of the electronic
22 search for altered or deleted police reports.” Id.

23

On January 6, 2015, the Parties participated in a telephone conference with In-

24 Synch Systems. During that call, it became clear that the software program that In-Synch

25 Systems provided to the CCMO and that the CCMO used to generate and its police reports

26 had a defect, or a “bug.” The practical effect of the “bug” is likely to make it impossible

27 to recover the data the United States has sought since May, 2014. Specifically, the effect 28 of the software bug is likely to make it impossible for In-Synch Systems to identify the

2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 3 of 15

pre-alteration content of the narrative and call-notes portions of CCMO reports after those
1
portions of reports were altered or deleted by officers. In other words, because of a
2
software bug it is unlikely that In-Synch System can recover the key portions of altered or
3
deleted CCMO police reports and, therefore, unlikely that the United States will ever
4
know how those reports were changed.
5
Upon learning this information, the United States, on January 6, 2015, asked In-
6 Synch Systems to prepare a price quotation for providing or confirming the following

7 information:

8

1. Verify existence for in Colorado City database of the “blob edit” bug and

9

missing history tracking.

2. Determine when it started.

10

3. Determine the exact behavior that’s happening.

Is there any chance for recovery?

11

Is there any chance to determine when edits happened?

12

Is there any chance for recovering the specific changes to the language of

‘narratives’ and ‘call notes’ database fields that were affected by the bug.

13

4. Determine how many (Calls/Cases/Narratives) have been fully deleted.

14

By Whom?

Are there periods where this deletion rate is higher?

15

5. See if there are periods of higher Call Note/Narrative Modification and/or

Deletion

16

6. When were they updated and to which versions (since 2010)?

17

7. What ConnectWise Ticket Information does In-Synch have?

Relevant interactions with our personnel that is tracked in our CRM system.

18

See In-Synch Systems Quote (Jan. 9, 2015), attached to electronic mail from Kirk Farra,

19

In-Synch Systems, to All parties (Jan. 8, 2015) (attached as Ex. 1). The purpose of

20
requesting this information was to determine: (1) if, in fact, it is impossible to recover the

21 pre-alteration versions of CCMO narratives and call notes, see items 1-3, above; (2) to

22 determine during what time periods the CCMO may have been engaged in concerted

23 efforts to alter or delete reports, see items 4-7 above. If the CCMO’s efforts to alter or

24 delete police reports coincided with receiving notice of the United States’ lawsuit or

25 receiving discovery requests, than it is more likely that those efforts were motivated by

26 bad faith. See Surowiec v. Capital Title Agency, Inc., 790 F. supp. 2d 997, 1008 (D. Ariz.

27 2011) (noting that sanctions for spoliation should be commensurate with the degree of

28 fault associated with the destruction).

3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 4 of 15

In-Synch Systems’ January 9, 2015 proposed work would cost $17,500. See Ex. 1.
1
The United States asked Colorado City if it would pay that work. See Electronic Mail
2
from Sean R. Keveney, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Jeffrey Matura (Jan. 8, 2015) (attached as
3
Ex. 2). Colorado City, however, asked In-Synch Systems for a revised, proposal, and on
4
January 13, 2015, the United States received a modified proposal in which In-Synch
5
Systems offered, for a cost of $6,500, to “Verify existence in Colorado City database of 6 the ‘blob edit’ software bug resulting missing historical data and document when the bug
7 started affecting the database.” See In-Synch Systems Quote attached to Electronic Mail
8 from Kirk Farra, In-Synch Systems, to Sean R. Keveney, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Jan. 13,

9 2015) (attached as Ex. 3). Colorado City then suggested the Parties accept In-Synch

10 Systems’ second, less-expensive quotation, and “verify the existence of the computer bug

11 and document when it began.” See Electronic Mails between Sean R. Keveney, U.S.

12 Dep’t of Justice, and Jeffrey Matura, counsel for Colorado City (Jan. 23-26, 2015)

13 (attached as Ex. 4). Colorado City also pointed out that In-Synch Systems had “confirmed

14 over the phone” the existence of the software bug, and that, as a result, “In-Synch Systems

15 cannot provide the information that the Court ordered.” Id. Colorado City, however, then
suggested that because the data is beyond recovery, the United States should withdraw its
16
request for a missing-evidence instruction. Id.
17
The United States rejected Colorado City’s proposal. See id. Specifically, the
18
United States pointed out that the existence of the bug in In-Synch System’s software,
19
rather than excusing Colorado City’s conduct, means that Colorado City was, in fact,
20 “successful in its original goal: altering or deleting police reports beyond recovery.” Id.

21

At this point the Parties are at an impasse. Furthermore, based on communications

22 with In-Synch Systems it appears that the contents of certain CCMO police reports have

23 been altered or deleted beyond recovery.

24

Colorado City’s suggestion, set forth below, that the United States can recover the

25 missing data by manually comparing hard copies of reports is misplaced for two reasons.

26 First, Colorado City’s recent discovery of a “copied virtual machine,” see ECF No. 529-2,

27 has resulted in the production of arguably unaltered reports only up in January 2013. The 28 hard-copy production of reports fortuitously discovered on a “copied virtual machine,” in

4

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 5 of 15
no way cures the prejudice the United States suffered. The production of those reports
1
will enable the United States only to identify changes made to police reports that were
2
generated before January 26, 2013, then produced after April 23, 2013. See The Town of
3
Colorado City’s Position, infra (“Colorado City understands that the “unaltered” reports
4
that it produced go through January 26, 2013 . . . .”). Colorado City, however, continued
5
producing police reports up to the close of discovery on July 31, 2014. The “copied 6 virtual machine” production will not show alterations or deletions to reports generated by 7 the CCMO after January 26, 2013. See United States’ Response to Colorado City’s
8 Motion Regarding Sanctions at 5, ECF No. 532 (“The copied virtual machine also does
9 not purport to cover the period from January 2013, to present, in which additional police
10 reports could have been, and according to Helaman Barlow and Lorenzo Barlow were,
11 altered.”). As the United States pointed out previously, at least one report that was
12 materially altered before production to the United States was generated and changed in
13 December 2013, almost a year after the last report found on the “copied virtual machine.”
14 See ECF No. 370-1. Second, the burden should not be on the United States to manually 15 compare thousands of pages of reports that should have been produced in unaltered form.
See id/ at 5.
16
The United States therefore requests that the Court grant the United States’ original
17
request for a missing-evidence instruction. See Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 353. In
18
the alternative, the United States requests that the Court direct the Parties to provide
19
further briefing on this issue. 20 The Town of Colorado City’s Position:
21
A. Overview.
22
Colorado City does not believe the parties are at an impasse. In-Synch Systems has
23
stated that a bug exists within its database that prevents it from completing the work that
24
the parties requested, but the existence of that bug and when it started impacting In-Synch
25
Systems’ database is not yet known with certainty. Colorado City therefore offered to
26
work with, and pay, In-Synch Systems to verify these issues. If the result is that a bug
27
does not exist, the parties can continue to work with In-Synch Systems to try and obtain
28
5

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 6 of 15

1 the requested information in a form that is useable to the parties. If the result is that a bug

2 does exist (which is likely), the parties can then look to other available options. These

3 other options, the context of how this issue arose, and recent relevant deposition testimony

4 from one of the United States’ expert witnesses are discussed below, all of which show

5 that the United States’ request for a missing-evidence instruction is unjustified.

6

B. In-Synch Systems.

7

The process with In-Systems began after the United States represented to this Court

8 that In-Synch Systems could “generate a report showing ‘every change made to every

9 record,’ including ‘the exact change made, who made the change, and the time of the

10 change.’” See United States’ Response to Colorado City’s Motion Regarding Sanctions

11 [Doc. 532], at p. 9, lines 4 – 7 (quoting affidavit of Philip Johnson, attached as Exhibit 3

12 to the United States’ motion). After receiving this representation, Colorado City contacted

13 In-Synch Systems and asked it to complete the requested work. See E-Mail

14 Correspondence with In-Synch Systems, attached as Exhibit 1 to Colorado City’s Reply

15 Regarding Sanctions [Doc. 536].

16

Colorado City and In-Synch Systems then had several conversations throughout

17 November and December 2014 regarding the scope of documents to search, the

18 timeframe, and other relevant parameters. See E-Mail Correspondence, attached as

19 Exhibits 1 – 4 of Joint Status Report Concerning Altered Police Reports [Doc. 556].

20 During these conversations, In-Synch Systems raised a concern that the search parameters

21 were too broad and would result in “millions” of responsive pages. Id. at Exhibit 4. In-

22 Synch Systems therefore suggested that the parties limit the search parameters to a

23 specific officer(s), incident(s), or report(s). Id. When Colorado City received this request,

24 it contacted the United States to schedule a conference call with In-Synch Systems. Id.

25

This conference call occurred on January 6, 2015. During this call, In-Synch

26 Systems explained for the first time that it believed a bug existed within its database that

27 prevents it from being able to show changes to the narrative description in any particular

28 report. See January 23, 2015 E-Mail Correspondence from Jeffrey Matura and to Sean

6

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 7 of 15

1 Keveney, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. These changes – if any in fact exist – are what the

2 United States wants to review, and if In-Synch Systems cannot produce them, the United

3 States stated that it was not worth anyone’s time or money to continue this process. Id.

4 The United States then asked In-Synch Systems whether it could complete other work on

5 the database, including to determine how many documents were fully deleted, if any

6 periods of higher modifications or deletions exist, when In-Synch Systems updated the

7 Marshal’s Department’s database, and when representatives from the Marshal’s

8 Department contacted In-Synch Systems’ help-desk. In-Synch Systems thereafter

9 provided a quote of $17,500.00 to complete this work. See In-Synch Systems’ First

10 Quote, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

11

Colorado City did not believe this additional work was relevant to the task at hand

12 or to what this Court directed Colorado City to complete. The request for the additional

13 work also included several faulty assumptions. For example, a period of higher

14 modifications does not necessarily equate to an officer “altering” a report; rather, an

15 officer could fix a date, correct a misspelled name, or add additional information, all of

16 which would show up as a “modification,” but none of which would mean that an officer

17 did anything wrong. Or, two officers could accidentally open two separate reports on the

18 same incident, thereby requiring a supervisor to delete one of the reports and/or merge the

19 two reports together, which would result in a “deletion,” but again would not mean anyone

20 did anything wrong. Police departments that use a record management system (such as

21 the Marshal’s Department) have a constant, daily flow of activity in and out of police

22 reports by supervisors and officers such that changes, edits, and alterations are a normal

23 part of police work. And so because the additional work the United States requested

24 would not necessarily provide accurate or useful results, Colorado City asked In-Synch

25 Systems to provide a quote to verify the existence of the bug and to determine when the

26 bug started affecting its database. In-Synch Systems provided this second quote to all

27 parties, which included a cost of $6,500.00. See In-Synch Systems’ Second Quote,

28 attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

7

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 8 of 15

1

Colorado City recommended to the United States that In-Synch Systems “provide

2 additional verification of the existence of the computer bug and that it began before the

3 relevant timeframe,” as described in its second quote. See January 23, 2015 E-Mail

4 Correspondence from Jeffrey Matura and to Sean Keveney, attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

5 Colorado City also agreed to cover the cost of this verification, and stated that it believed

6 it was reasonable to assume that the United States would withdraw its request for

7 sanctions. Id. The United States disagreed. See January 26, 2015 E-Mail

8 Correspondence from Sean Keveney and to Jeffrey Matura, attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

9

Despite the United States’ disagreement, Colorado City still believes that In-Synch

10 Systems should confirm that the bug exists within its database, when the bug began, and

11 whether it prevents In-Synch Systems from providing the requested information.

12 Colorado City also still remains willing to cover the cost to complete this work.

13

C. Using Hard-Copies As Alternative Option.

14

If In-Synch Systems cannot provide the requested information, another available

15 option is to use hard-copies of the police reports, which Colorado City already provided to

16 the United States.

17

As explained in Colorado City’s Motion Regarding Sanctions [Doc. 529], Colorado

18 City produced all police reports as they existed on January 26, 2013. This date is before

19 the United States sent its request for production on April 23, 2013 that led to this entire

20 issue, and so the police reports from January 26, 2013 are the “unaltered” versions. More

21 specifically, Colorado City produced to the United States the following documents with

22 the corresponding bates numbers:

23

2010 Completed Reports

CCDOJ070385 – 73839

24

2011 Completed Reports

CCDOJ073840 – 75232

2011 Pending Reports

CCDOJ075233 – 75254

25

2012 Completed Reports

CCDOJ075255 – 76446

26

2012 Pending Reports

CCDOJ076447 – 76523

2012 Submitted Reports

CCDOJ076524 – 76574

27

2013 Completed Reports

CCDOJ076575 – 76581

2013 Pending Reports

CCDOJ076582 – 76587

28

8

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 9 of 15

1

2013 Submitted Reports

CCDOJ076588 – 76594

Calls from 1/1/2010 to 1/26/13 CCDOJ076595 – 81717

2 “Completed” reports are reports that the Marshal approved, and are therefore considered

3 final. “Submitted” reports are reports that an officer submitted to the Marshal for final

4 approval, but which the Marshal had not yet approved. And “pending” reports are reports

5 on which an officer was still working.

6

The United States can use these reports to complete a side-by-side comparison with

7 the reports that Colorado City produced to the United States after its April 23, 2013

8 discovery request. This comparison will enable the United States to see whether any

9 changes or alterations were made to the narrative descriptions (or anywhere else on the

10 reports) and, if so, what those changes or alterations were and whether they are material.

11 This information is exactly what the United States wants. A computer printout or

12 summary from In-Synch Systems might be easier to review, but if that is not possible, a

13 manual review is still available.

14

Colorado City understands that the “unaltered” reports that it produced go through

15 January 26, 2013, but that the United States’ request for production was issued on April

16 23, 2013, thereby leaving a three-month gap. To cover this small gap, the United States

17 can manually review the reports that were created from January 26 to April 23, 2013

18 (which Colorado City already produced) and identify whether any reports during that

19 timeframe contain incidents material to this lawsuit. If so, the parties can then go back to

20 In-Synch Systems and ask it to determine whether any changes occurred to those specific

21 reports. Although In-Synch Systems may not be able to describe the specific change that

22 occurred due to the bug in its database, it could at least confirm whether a change

23 occurred, how many changes occurred, etc. Therefore, by completing a manual review,

24 and then using In-Synch Systems if necessary, the United States can obtain all the

25 information it seeks. Colorado City also provided to the United States affidavits from the

26 officers to confirm what changes they made to any remaining police reports in April 2013

27 and why they made those changes. See Affidavits, attached as Exhibit 3 to Colorado

28

9

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 10 of 15

1 City’s Motion Regarding Sanctions [Doc. 529], and Exhibit 3 to Colorado City’s Reply

2 Regarding Sanctions [Doc. 536].

3

D. Officers’ Changes To Reports.

4

Colorado City believes this issue regarding altering police reports has lost its focus

5 and turned into something larger than it should have ever become. The officers’ affidavits

6 (as referenced above) confirm what changes they made after Colorado City received the

7 United States’ discovery requests and why they made those changes. To review, the

8 officers’ affidavits confirm the following facts: (1) in April 2013, then-Chief Helaman

9 Barlow asked each officer to complete any unfinished reports and calls so that he could

10 approve them as final and produce them to the United States; (2) each officer completed

11 about a dozen reports; (3) the officers did not make any alterations to portions of the

12 report that were already written, other than to fix obvious errors such as coding or

13 grammar; (4) the officers added information such as follow-up work on the case, notes of

14 photographs, notes of witness statements, and other evidence gathered since the report was

15 opened; (5) any alterations were only made to incomplete, non-final reports; and (6) no

16 changes were made to reports that were already approved and final. Id. The officers’

17 conduct here is no different than any other officer’s conduct from another police

18 department, as reports are always in a constant state of change until they are final.

19

The United States assumes that any change an officer made to a report was

20 improper and sanctionable. But this Court need only look to the United States’ own

21 expert witness to confirm that the officers’ conduct here was not improper. The United

22 States identified Lyle Mann as an expert witness. See United States’ Rule 26(a)(2)(C)

23 Expert Disclosure [Doc. 458]. Mr. Mann is the Executive Director of the Arizona Peace

24 Officers Standards and Training Board, which certifies all Arizona police officers,

25 including those who work for the Marshal’s Department. During Mr. Mann’s deposition,

26 he agreed that it is proper for an officer to make changes to a report before it is final and

27 also proper for an officer to finish a report before producing it in response to a discovery

28 request. Here is the relevant testimony from his deposition:

10

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 11 of 15

1

Q: Okay. Let me stop you right there and let’s see if we can kind of

2

unpackage that a little bit. So you would agree with me that it’s okay to make changes to an original report, not making – we’re

3

not talking about making a supplement report by the original

police report. It’s okay to make changes to that until it has

4

actually been submitted, meaning it has been approved by the

5

supervisor and submitted?

6

A: In my opinion, that’s correct.

7

Q: Okay. And so if a discovery request was received in which it

8

requested a bunch of police reports, and at that point in time, if

there were a bunch of police reports that had yet to be signed off

9

by the supervisor and had not been completed, would it be

10

appropriate for those officers to finish their reports, submit them

to the supervisor before they were produced in response to the

11

discovery request?

12

Mr. Donnelly: Form.

13

A: Given the scenario that you outlined, believing that the

14

information in the reports was true and accurate and not – and not

15

in any way modified so that they weren’t true and accurate, the

scenario you gave me would make sense to me.

16 See Deposition Transcript of Lyle Mann, at p. 182, line 15 to p. 183, line 11, attached

17 hereto as Exhibit 5. This sworn testimony confirms that the officers’ conduct after

18 Colorado City received the United States’ discovery request was proper.

19

E. Conclusion.

20

Based upon the history of this dispute, the documents that Colorado City has

21 already produced to the United States, the testimony from the United States’ expert, and

22 all other related issues, Colorado City requests that this Court deny the United States’

23 request for a missing-evidence instruction. It is not justified and not legally supported.

24 Instead, this Court should direct Colorado City to work with, and pay, In-Synch Systems

25 to verify that the bug exists and to confirm when it started affecting In-Synch Systems’

26 database. If the bug prevents In-Synch Systems from providing the requested information,

27 the United States can then complete a manual comparison of the documents already

28

11

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 12 of 15

1 produced (and use In-Synch Systems at that time, if necessary). The United States can

2 also present during trial whatever evidence or arguments it deems appropriate on this

3 issue, while at the same time Colorado City can present whatever evidence and arguments

4 it deems appropriate (including the sworn testimony of the United States’ own expert

5 witness) to explain that the officers’ conduct was proper and consistent with the standards

6 set forth by Arizona POST. The jury can then serve as the ultimate factfinder on this

7 issue.

8

Respectfully submitted,

9

10 FOR THE UNITED STATES:
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section
R. TAMAR HAGLER CHRISTY E. LOPEZ Deputy Chiefs ERIC W. TREENE Special Counsel

20

/s/ Sean R. Keveney

21

SEAN R. KEVENEY

22

JESSICA C. CROCKETT

MATTHEW J. DONNELLY

23

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

24

Washington, DC 20530

25

Phone:

(202) 514-4838

Facsimile: (202) 514-1116

26

E-mail: matthew.donnelly@usdoj.gov

27

28

12

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 13 of 15

FOR COLORADO CITY:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

/s/ Jeffrey C. Matura with permission Jeffrey C. Matura Asha Sebastian Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Attorneys for Defendant Town of Colorado City
13

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 14 of 15

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I certify that on February 6, 2015, I caused a copy of the foregoing Second Joint

Status Report Concerning Altered Police Reports to be sent via the Court’s ECF system

3 to the following:

4

Jeffrey C. Matura

5

Asha Sebastian

Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C.

6

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

7

Attorneys for Defendant Town of Colorado City

8
R. Blake Hamilton

9

Ashley M. Gregson

Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C.

10

111 East Broadway, Suite 900

11

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Attorneys for Defendants City of Hildale, Twin City Water Authority, and Twin

12

City Power

13

14

15

/s/ Sean R. Keveney SEAN R. KEVENEY

16

Attorney for the United States

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577 Filed 02/06/15 Page 15 of 15
15

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 19
Exhibit 1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 19

Keveney, Sean R (CRT)

From: Sent: To: Cc:
Subject: Attachments:

Kirk Farra [Kirk.Farra@in-synch.com] Thursday, January 08, 2015 12:20 PM Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Hylton, Jeff (CRT); Hayes, Chris (CRT); Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com); Jeff Matura RE: U.S. v. Colorado City. et al. U.S. v. Colorado City - AAAQ1334.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Follow up Flagged

All,  Pleaseseetheattachedquotewhichrepresentsthecostforourservicestoundertaketheactionitemsdiscussedinour conferencecallonTuesday. Itwilltakeusroughlytwoweekstodotheworkafterreceivingapurchaseorderfortheservices.  Regards,  Kirk 
From:Keveney,SeanR(CRT)[mailto:Sean.R.Keveney@usdoj.gov] Sent:Tuesday,January6,20152:54PM To:KirkFarra Cc:Donnelly,Matthew(CRT);Crockett,Jessica(CRT);Hylton,Jeff(CRT);Hayes,Chris(CRT);BlakeHamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com);JeffMatura Subject:U.S.v.ColoradoCity.etal.  Kirk:
Thank you for your time today. I have copied all the parties on this email.
Regards,
________________ Sean R. Keveney Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4838

1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 3 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 4 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 5 of 19
Exhibit 2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 6 of 19

Keveney, Sean R (CRT)

From: Sent: To: Cc:
Subject: Attachments:

Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Thursday, January 08, 2015 1:32 PM Jeff Matura Hylton, Jeff (CRT); Hayes, Chris (CRT); Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com) FW: U.S. v. Colorado City. et al. U.S. v. Colorado City - AAAQ1334.pdf

Mr. Matura, Please confirm that Colorado City will be bearing the costs reflected in the attached proposal from Mr. Farra. Regards, Sean R. Keveney

________________ Sean R. Keveney Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4838

From: Kirk Farra [mailto:Kirk.Farra@in-synch.com] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 12:20 PM To: Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Cc: Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Hylton, Jeff (CRT); Hayes, Chris (CRT); Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com); Jeff Matura Subject: RE: U.S. v. Colorado City. et al.  All,  Pleaseseetheattachedquotewhichrepresentsthecostforourservicestoundertaketheactionitemsdiscussedinour conferencecallonTuesday. Itwilltakeusroughlytwoweekstodotheworkafterreceivingapurchaseorderfortheservices.  Regards,  Kirk 
From:Keveney,SeanR(CRT)[mailto:Sean.R.Keveney@usdoj.gov] Sent:Tuesday,January6,20152:54PM To:KirkFarra Cc:Donnelly,Matthew(CRT);Crockett,Jessica(CRT);Hylton,Jeff(CRT);Hayes,Chris(CRT);BlakeHamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com);JeffMatura Subject:U.S.v.ColoradoCity.etal. 
1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 7 of 19
Kirk: Thank you for your time today. I have copied all the parties on this email. Regards, ________________ Sean R. Keveney Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4838
2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 8 of 19
Exhibit 3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 9 of 19

Keveney, Sean R (CRT)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Monday, January 26, 2015 4:25 PM Jeff Matura; Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Crockett, Jessica (CRT) Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com) RE: Colorado City v. United States / In-Synch Systems

Mr. Matura,
The United States will not agree to the plan you propose below for two reasons.
First, Colorado City’s proposal in no way remedies the prejudice the United States has suffered as a result of Colorado City’s spoliation. Rather, your proposal evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the problem and the purpose of the missing-evidence instruction that the United States originally requested. A missing-evidence instruction serves both a remedial and a punitive purpose. It is designed (1) to remedy the harm caused when a party destroys evidence, thus making the evidence unavailable to the opposing party; and (2) to punish the destruction and deter future similar conduct.
The Court has determined that the CCMO materially altered or deleted an unknown number of police reports. The United States learned of this conduct only fortuitously when CCMO Chief Helaman Barlow decided to reveal what the CCMO had done during his second deposition in this case. Initially, it appeared that despite the CCMO’s efforts to alter or delete records after receiving notice of the United States’ lawsuit, there was some chance that In-Synch Systems could recover the lost data and identify specific alterations or deletions. If the data could have been recovered, then there was a possibility that at least the remedial purpose underlying a missing-evidence instruction would no longer be necessary; InSynch could remedy the harm caused by the CCMO’s conduct. It now appears, however, that because of a software bug, In-Synch cannot recover the data Colorado City destroyed. Stated differently, the software bug means that, in the end, CCMO was successful in its original goal: altering or deleting police reports beyond recovery. The presence of the software bug therefore in no way excuses Colorado City’s conduct. On the contrary, it makes a missing-evidence instruction all the more necessary.
Second, the United States continues to believe that Mr. Farra’s original proposal is the appropriate one, and that Colorado City should bear the full cost of In-Synch’s performing the proposed work. As you appear to agree, it is necessary, at a minimum, to confirm the existence and effect of the software bug. The remainder of Mr. Farra’s original proposal, however, is also necessary and appropriate. The United States has a legitimate interest, based on Colorado City’s conduct, in determining when and how often CCMO officers attempted to alter or delete reports. The United States also has an interest, based on Colorado City’s conduct, in determining if and when CCMO officers deleted reports, later realized their conduct could be discovered, and then attempted to contact In-Synch’s help desk in an effort to recover deleted reports. Such information is relevant to determining the full scope of the spoliation or attempted spoliation.
Please indicate, by the close of business on January 29, 2015, whether Colorado City will agree to Mr. Farra’s original proposal and agree to bear the full cost associated with that proposal.
Regards,
Sean R. Keveney

________________ Sean R. Keveney Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530
1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 10 of 19
(202) 514-4838
From: Jeff Matura [mailto:JMatura@gbmlawpc.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 6:04 PM To: Keveney, Sean R (CRT); Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Crockett, Jessica (CRT) Cc: Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com) Subject: Colorado City v. United States / In-Synch Systems  Sean:
This e-mail is to follow-up on the two quotes the parties received from In-Synch Systems. The Court previously ordered Colorado City to “proceed with its ongoing efforts to recover unaltered reports or data showing what changes were made in reports.” Colorado City has been in frequent communication with In-Synch Systems to comply with this order. However, we all learned during our joint conference call with Kirk Farra that a computer bug exists within In-Synch Systems’ software that prevents it from being able to recover any changes to the narrative description in any particular call or case report. As you stated to Mr. Farra during that call, those changes to the narrative description are what the United States seeks, and if the bug prevents In-Synch Systems from being able to produce that information, you stated that it is not worth anyone’s time or money to continue this process.
In-Synch Systems then provided two quotes. The first quote was to verify the existence of the computer bug and complete additional work that you requested. This quote was for $17,500. The second quote was to verify the existence of the computer bug and document when it began. This quote was for $6,500. If the computer bug exists (which Mr. Farra has at least confirmed over the phone), then In-Synch Systems cannot provide the information that the Court ordered. Mr. Farra also confirmed during our joint conference call that the Marshal’s Department does not have any independent ability to produce the requested information, but even if it did, its database contains the computer bug.
Based upon all the information learned from In-Synch Systems, I recommend that In-Synch Systems provide additional verification of the existence of the computer bug and that it began before the relevant timeframe. If Colorado City covers the cost for this work, it is reasonable to expect that the United States will withdraw its request for sanctions against Colorado City regarding the production of unaltered police reports or changes made to reports.
Please let me know whether the United States is agreeable to this plan.
Jeffrey C. Matura Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Direct: 602-792-5721 Fax: 602-792-5710 E-Mail: jmatura@gbmlawpc.com
This electronic message and any attachments contain information that is or may be legally privileged, confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure. The message and attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me immediately so that any mistake in transmission can be corrected, and then delete the message and any attachments from your system.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with IRS requirements, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (b) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 11 of 19

Keveney, Sean R (CRT)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Friday, January 23, 2015 8:42 AM Jeff Matura Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com) RE: U.S. v. Colorado City. et al.

Mr. Matura,
The United States does not agree with your characterization of events as set forth in your email below. For one thing, the United States disagrees that it changed the nature of the conversation during our discussion with In-Synch Systems. As you are aware, the Court’s orders on this issue deal with discovering the full scope of alterations and deletions to CCMO reports. Determining when higher rates of narrative changes or deletions were taking place is relevant to that inquiry. If the higher rates of narrative changes or deletions took place after Colorado City received notice of the United States’ lawsuit or after Colorado City received written discovery requests, that fact would tend to show an intent to deceive on the part of the CCMO. The United States also disagrees with your claim that your failure to object to the proposed scope of work was merely out of deference to Mr. Farra. The scope of work was described in an email on which all parties were copied. If Colorado City wished to object, it could have written to the United States and done so. Finally, the United States disagrees with your claim that copying Mr. Farra on an email was inappropriate. As you know, at the conclusion of our call with Mr. Farra, all parties to the call agreed that they should be included, going forward, on all communications regarding this issue. Indeed, it was because of that agreement that the United States was surprised to see that Colorado City had been communicating with In-Synch Systems without including the United States.
The United States’ disagreement with your characterization of events aside, the fact remains that the Court has requested a status report. On January 13, 2015, the United States wrote to Colorado City and asked: “Please confirm (1) that Colorado City will request In-Synch Systems to perform the work outlined in Mr. Farra’s original, January 8, 2015 proposal and (2) that Colorado City will bear the costs associated with that work.” See Electronic mail message from Sean R. Keveney, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Jeffrey Matura, counsel for Colorado City (Jan. 13, 2015).
The United States has yet to receive a response to these specific requests. Please indicate when Colorado City intends to provide the requested confirmation.
Regards,
Sean R. Keveney

________________ Sean R. Keveney Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4838

From: Jeff Matura [mailto:JMatura@gbmlawpc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 7:15 PM To: Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Cc: Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com) Subject: RE: U.S. v. Colorado City. et al.
1

 Sean:

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 12 of 19

Your insinuation that Colorado City is not complying with the Court’s order is entirely without merit and unfair. Colorado City has taken – and continues to take – all steps necessary to comply with the Court’s order regarding police reports. But because of your unfair characterization of what has occurred since the Court’s order, I feel compelled to respond in detail to your below e-mail.

First, the Court ordered Colorado City to “proceed with its ongoing efforts to recover unaltered reports or data showing what changes were made in reports.” Colorado City has been in frequent communication with In-Synch Systems to work on this issue. I have kept you updated on these communications via e-mail and also offered for you to participate in a conference call with Kirk Farra at In-Synch Systems to discuss this issue.

Second, when we participated in a joint conference call with Kirk Farra last week, he confirmed that a computer bug exists within In-Synch Systems’ software that prevents it from being able to recover any changes to the narrative description in any particular call or case report. As you stated to Mr. Farra during the call, those changes to the narrative description are what the United States seeks, and if the bug prevents In-Synch Systems from being able to produce that information, you admitted that it was not worth anyone’s time or money to continue this process.

Third, toward the end of the conference call, you changed the discussion and inquired of Mr. Farra whether In-Synch Systems could complete other work on the Marshal’s Department’s database, such as determining whether higher periods of narrative changes occurred, when In-Synch Systems last updated the Marshal’s Department’s database, how often the Marshal’s Department contacted the help desk at In-Synch Systems, etc. I did not object to this discussion because it would have been unprofessional and placed Mr. Farra in the uncomfortable position of being stuck between two attorneys with different views on a topic. But also, if the United States is interested in this additional type of information unrelated to the Court’s order, I was not going to interrupt your conversation with Mr. Farra. My lack of objection, however, was not intended as some affirmation that your additional requests to In-Synch Systems were proper or within the scope of the Court’s order. I also believe it is instructive that Mr. Farra prepared the proposal for you (as stated on the proposal) because everyone on the call understood that these were additional issues that you wanted to inquire about.

Fourth, after receiving Mr. Farra’s January 8, 2015 proposal, I wondered how much of that proposal was related to “verifying” that the computer bug exists (which Mr. Farra told all of us it did exist during our conference call) versus how much was related to the additional work that you requested. I therefore asked Mr. Farra to provide a revised proposal on just verifying that the bug exists. He again told me that he already knows the bug exists, but that he would provide a revised proposal.

Fifth, we all received Mr. Farra’s revised proposal today.

Sixth, you copied Mr. Farra on your below e-mail, which I believe is inappropriate. Mr. Farra expressed during our joint conference call that he wants to stay out of this dispute, and so I am not copying him on this response. He is a vendor, not a lawyer involved in this case.

Finally, Colorado City will now review Mr. Farra’s original and revised proposals and decide the most appropriate way to proceed consistent with the Court’s order. I will let you know as soon as I have direction from Colorado City.

If you would like to further discuss these issues, let me know.

Jeffrey C. Matura Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Direct: 602-792-5721 Fax: 602-792-5710 E-Mail: jmatura@gbmlawpc.com
This electronic message and any attachments contain information that is or may be legally privileged, confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure. The message and attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee. If you
2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 13 of 19
are not the intended recipient, please contact me immediately so that any mistake in transmission can be corrected, and then delete the message and any attachments from your system.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with IRS requirements, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (b) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
From: Keveney, Sean R (CRT) [mailto:Sean.R.Keveney@usdoj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 8:23 AM To: Jeff Matura Cc: Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Hylton, Jeff (CRT); Hayes, Chris (CRT); Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com); Kirk Farra Subject: RE: U.S. v. Colorado City. et al.  Mr. Matura,
I write to raise concerns regarding Colorado City’s efforts to comply with the Court’s orders relating to the recovery or identification of altered or deleted police reports.
As you know, based on concerns Colorado City expressed in an email sent December 27, 2014, on January 6, 2015, the parties participated in a conference call with Mr. Farra of In-Synch Systems in an attempt to narrow the scope of work that In-Synch would need to undertake in connection with Colorado City’s obligations arising from the Court’s November 26, 2014 Order. See Order at 4, ECF No. 537 (ordering, “The Town of Colorado City shall proceed with its ongoing efforts to recover unaltered reports or data showing what changes were made in [police] reports.”) (emphasis added). At the conclusion of that conversation, Mr. Farra outlined a proposed scope of work that was significantly narrower than what you discussed in your December 27, 2014 email. The United States indicated Mr. Farra’s proposal was acceptable; neither Colorado City nor the Hildale Defendants objected or raised any concerns. Mr. Farra confirmed the scope of work in an email sent that same day to all parties. Again, neither Colorado City nor the Hildale Defendants expressed any concerns.
On January 8, 2015, Mr. Farra sent a formal proposal memorializing the scope of work the parties had discussed and quoting a price of $17,500 for that work. The United States then wrote to confirm that Colorado City would bear that cost. We received no response from Colorado City.
Today, January 13, 2015, Mr. Farra provided a revised proposal, via email, with a scope of work that is significantly narrower than what the parties discussed. Mr. Farra’s email also indicates that the revised proposal is based on a conversation he had with you in which the United States was not invited to participate, and in which the United States did not have an opportunity to participate. Finally, Mr. Farra’s revised proposal continues to suggest that the United States will be responsible for the costs associated with In-Synch System’s efforts to determine the full scope of Colorado City’s efforts to alter or delete police reports after receiving notice of this lawsuit.
Please confirm (1) that Colorado City will request In-Synch Systems to perform the work outlined in Mr. Farra’s original, January 8, 2015 proposal and (2) that Colorado City will bear the costs associated with that work. In addition, please ensure that in the future the United States is included in Colorado City’s communications with In-Synch Systems regarding these issues.
Regards,
Sean R. Keveney
________________ Sean R. Keveney Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division
3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 14 of 19
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4838
From: Kirk Farra [mailto:Kirk.Farra@in-synch.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 9:56 AM To: Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Cc: Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Hylton, Jeff (CRT); Hayes, Chris (CRT); Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com); Jeff Matura Subject: RE: U.S. v. Colorado City. et al.  All,  PermydiscussionwithJeffMatura,attachedisarevisedquote. Thisalsoincludesourtimeinvestedinthismattertodate.  Regards,  Kirk 
KirkFarra
President InͲSynchSystems,LLC www.inͲsynchrms.com Kirk.Farra@inͲsynch.com Phone:800Ͳ243Ͳ6540x103   
From:KirkFarra Sent:Thursday,January8,201512:20PM To:'Keveney,SeanR(CRT)' Cc:Donnelly,Matthew(CRT);Crockett,Jessica(CRT);Hylton,Jeff(CRT);Hayes,Chris(CRT);BlakeHamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com);JeffMatura Subject:RE:U.S.v.ColoradoCity.etal.  All,  Pleaseseetheattachedquotewhichrepresentsthecostforourservicestoundertaketheactionitemsdiscussedinour conferencecallonTuesday. Itwilltakeusroughlytwoweekstodotheworkafterreceivingapurchaseorderfortheservices.  Regards,  Kirk 
From:Keveney,SeanR(CRT)[mailto:Sean.R.Keveney@usdoj.gov] Sent:Tuesday,January6,20152:54PM To:KirkFarra Cc:Donnelly,Matthew(CRT);Crockett,Jessica(CRT);Hylton,Jeff(CRT);Hayes,Chris(CRT);BlakeHamilton
4

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 15 of 19
(bhamilton@djplaw.com);JeffMatura Subject:U.S.v.ColoradoCity.etal.  Kirk: Thank you for your time today. I have copied all the parties on this email. Regards, ________________ Sean R. Keveney Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4838
5

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 16 of 19
Exhibit 4

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 17 of 19

Keveney, Sean R (CRT)

From: Sent: To: Cc:
Subject: Attachments:

Kirk Farra [Kirk.Farra@in-synch.com] Tuesday, January 13, 2015 9:56 AM Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Crockett, Jessica (CRT); Hylton, Jeff (CRT); Hayes, Chris (CRT); Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com); Jeff Matura RE: U.S. v. Colorado City. et al. U.S. v. Colorado City - AAAQ1341.pdf

All,  PermydiscussionwithJeffMatura,attachedisarevisedquote. Thisalsoincludesourtimeinvestedinthismattertodate.  Regards,  Kirk 
KirkFarra
President InͲSynchSystems,LLC www.inͲsynchrms.com Kirk.Farra@inͲsynch.com Phone:800Ͳ243Ͳ6540x103   
From:KirkFarra Sent:Thursday,January8,201512:20PM To:'Keveney,SeanR(CRT)' Cc:Donnelly,Matthew(CRT);Crockett,Jessica(CRT);Hylton,Jeff(CRT);Hayes,Chris(CRT);BlakeHamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com);JeffMatura Subject:RE:U.S.v.ColoradoCity.etal.  All,  Pleaseseetheattachedquotewhichrepresentsthecostforourservicestoundertaketheactionitemsdiscussedinour conferencecallonTuesday. Itwilltakeusroughlytwoweekstodotheworkafterreceivingapurchaseorderfortheservices.  Regards,  Kirk 
From:Keveney,SeanR(CRT)[mailto:Sean.R.Keveney@usdoj.gov] Sent:Tuesday,January6,20152:54PM To:KirkFarra Cc:Donnelly,Matthew(CRT);Crockett,Jessica(CRT);Hylton,Jeff(CRT);Hayes,Chris(CRT);BlakeHamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com);JeffMatura Subject:U.S.v.ColoradoCity.etal.
1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 18 of 19
 Kirk: Thank you for your time today. I have copied all the parties on this email. Regards, ________________ Sean R. Keveney Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4838
2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-1 Filed 02/06/15 Page 19 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-2 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-2 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 577-2 Filed 02/06/15 Page 3 of 3

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607 Filed 03/20/15 Page 1 of 9

1 Steven H. Rosenbaum (NY Bar #1901958)

Jonathan M. Smith (DC Bar #396578) 2 R. Tamar Hagler (CA Bar #189441)

Christy E. Lopez (DC Bar #473612) 3 Eric W. Treene (NY Bar #2568343)

Sean R. Keveney (TX Bar #24033862) 4 Jessica C. Crockett (NY Bar #4694972)

Matthew J. Donnelly (IL Bar #6281308) 5 Attorneys

United States Department of Justice 6 Civil Rights Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 7 Washington, DC 20530

Phone:

(202) 305-4838

8 Facsimile: (202) 514-1116

E-mail: sean.keveney@usdoj.gov
9

Attorneys for the United States
10

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

12

13
14 United States,

15

Plaintiff;

16

v.

17
Town of Colorado City, Arizona, et al.,
18

19

Defendants.

No. 3:12cv8123-HRH
THIRD JOINT STATUS REPORT CONCERNING ALTERED POLICE REPORTS

20

21

On February 11, 2015, this Court ordered the Town of Colorado City to work with

22 In-Synch Systems, Inc., to ascertain, among other things, whether a defect in the software

23 system used to generate and store police reports prepared by the Colorado City Marshal’s

24 Office (“CCMO”), “preclude[s] recovery of the missing police report data.” Order at 3,

25 ECF No. 578 (setting forth four questions for Colorado City to address regarding a defect

26 in the Town’s police report software).

27

Colorado City contracted with In-Synch Systems to determine the answers to the

28 questions presented in the Court’s February 11, 2015 Order, and on March 11, 2015, In-

1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 9

Synch Systems provided the parties with a report. See Letter from In-Synch Systems,
1
Inc., to U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Town of Colorado City (Mar. 10, 2015) (attached as Ex.
2
A). The Court’s February 11, 2015 Order also directed the Parties, following receipt of a
3
report from In-Synch Systems, to provide the Court with a further joint status report. See
4
Order at 3, ECF No. 578. Colorado City and the United States accordingly provide the
5
following status report:
6 The United States’ Position:

7

As this Court is aware, the United States has been attempting to determine, since

8 May of 2013, how many CCMO reports were altered prior to production to the United

9 States and how they were altered. See Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence

10 (May 9, 2014), ECF No. 353. See also Order at 11, ECF No. 438 (“The evidence also

11 suggests that some police reports were materially altered prior to being produced.”); id. at

12 20 (“Colorado City shall provide plaintiff with the list of altered police reports and how

13 they were altered, or copies of the unaltered reports, on or before August 18, 2014.”).

14

The United States has repeatedly pointed out that Colorado City has failed to show

15 what alterations were made to CCMO reports for at least two periods: (1) for the period

January 26, 2013, to April 23, 2013; and (2) for the period April 23, 2013, to the present.
16

See Second Joint Status Report at 5, ECF No. 577 (pointing out that Colorado City’s
17
production of a “copied virtual machine” does not cover the period from January 2013 to
18
the present, a period during at which at least one police report, Helaman Barlow’s

19
December 2013 report regarding Willie Jessop, was altered).

20

It is now clear that alterations to, and deletions from, CCMO police reports during

21 these two combined periods—i.e., from January 23, 2013, to the present—cannot be

22 recovered. See Exhibit A (In-Synch Letter). Because of a software defect in the program

23 the CCMO used to generate, edit, and store police reports, it is impossible to recover

24 changes to the most important portions of the CCMO reports, the officers’ narratives. Id.

25 (noting that a software defect was introduced in June 27, 2011, that makes it impossible to

26 recover edits to the “Narrative” portions of CCMO reports). In other words, the original

27 substance of any CCMO reports changed in anticipation of production to the Department 28 of Justice cannot be recovered.

2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607 Filed 03/20/15 Page 3 of 9

Colorado City has consistently and successfully engaged in efforts to prevent the
1
United States from obtaining certain evidence in this case. As this Court is aware, the
2
United States set forth substantial and detailed evidence of Colorado City’s failure to
3
preserve and produce documents, including dispatch calls, CCMO police reports, and
4
notes of officer meetings. See generally United States’ Motion for Sanctions for
5
Spoliation of Evidence, ECF No. 353. Indeed, this Court found that there is “evidence 6 that material alterations were made to police reports.” See Order: Motion for Sanctions
7 for Spoliation of Evidence at 9, ECF No. 438. This Court found that “the possibility may
8 exist that Colorado City destroyed some officer meeting minutes after it had notice of this

9 lawsuit.” Id. at 11. This Court also found that Colorado City had failed to preserve two

10 dispatch calls, and that the failure to preserve those calls “may create an inference that

11 Colorado City acted with a culpable state of mind.” Id. at 15. And, as this Court is aware,

12 the United States was forced to move this Court for an order to show cause in connection

13 with continuing efforts to identify how CCMO officers altered their police reports before
14 producing them to the United States. See United States’ Motion [] For an Order to Show
15 Cause, ECF No. 467 (quoting Colorado City employee Lorenzo Barlow as stating, “[City Manager] David Darger said we need to be careful what we do give out. We need to
16
make sure we re-read it and make sure there’s nothing that really implicates the city or
17
makes the city look bad . . . .”).
18
It is now clear that, like the two deleted dispatch calls, certain CCMO police
19
reports have been altered beyond recovery. The United States therefore renews its request 20 that the Court grant the United States a missing-evidence instruction. See Motion for
21 Sanctions, ECF No. 353. In the alternative, the United States requests that the Court
22 direct the Parties to provide further briefing on this issue of the appropriate remedy for

23 Colorado City’s conduct.

24 The Town of Colorado City’s Position:

25

The facts and law do not support a missing-evidence instruction against Colorado

26 City because the evidence is not missing. The United States already has every completed,

27 pending, and submitted police report and call note from January 1, 2010 through January 28 26, 2013, in a version as they existed before the United States’ April 23, 2013 request for

3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607 Filed 03/20/15 Page 4 of 9

production. See Second Joint Status Report [Doc. 577], at pp. 8 – 10. The United States
1
can therefore complete a page-by-page comparison to determine whether any material
2
alterations occurred to any report or call. For the three-month gap between January 26,
3
2013 and April 23, 2013, the United States has not identified any issue relevant to its case
4
that occurred during that short timeframe. But even if it did, In-Synch Systems can tell it
5
whether any alterations occurred, who made the alteration, when it occurred, and whether 6 certain information was removed. The United States also has all the reports and calls from
7 January 26, 2013 to April 23, 2013, the police officers’ affidavits regarding any changes
8 that were made, and the deposition testimony from its own expert witness who confirmed
9 that the officers’ changes were appropriate. Id., at pp. 10 – 11. The United States

10 therefore has all the information it requested in its April 23, 2013 request for production;

11 therefore, this Court should deny its request for a missing-evidence instruction.

12

A. In-Synch Systems.

13

On February 11, 2015, this Court directed Colorado City to proceed with In-Synch

14 Systems to answer four questions related to the potential defect within its software

15 program and how that defect impacts In-Synch Systems’ database. See Order [Doc. 577].

Colorado City hired In-Synch Systems and paid it $10,000.00 to complete this work. In-
16

Synch Systems then issued its report on March 10, 2015. That report is attached hereto as
17
Exhibit A and contains the following relevant information:

18
x A computer bug was introduced into In-Synch Systems’ software

19
on June 27, 2011. This bug causes the “update history” of

20

specific fields to be lost once future edits are made to those

21

fields.

22

x Due to the bug, In-Synch Systems can only recover data as it

23

appears after the most recent modification to a report. However,

24

In-Synch Systems can still determine when a modification was

25

made and which user account made the modification. In-Synch

26

Systems can also still recover other historical data, including text

27

field modifications (such as a change to names or times) and

28

4

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607 Filed 03/20/15 Page 5 of 9

removal of linked records (such as removing a person or vehicle
1
from a report).
2
x In-Synch Systems has now fixed the bug and is currently
3
releasing a new version of its software to its customer. This new
4
version will fix the bug within the Colorado City Marshal’s
5
Department’s database. 6 By obtaining this report from In-Synch Systems, Colorado City complied with this
7 Court’s order. This report also confirms that In-Synch Systems can still provide historical
8 data regarding modifications to any particular report or call, and that this data would

9 enable the United States to determine whether any report or call was modified.

10

B. Hard-Copies Of Reports.

11

The United States’ argument that it cannot determine whether any alterations

12 occurred is factually incorrect. As explained in Colorado City’s Motion Regarding

13 Sanctions [Doc. 529] and the parties Second Joint Status Report [Doc. 577], Colorado
14 City produced all reports and calls, as they existed on January 26, 2013. This date is
15 before the United States sent its request for production on April 23, 2013. Therefore, the reports and calls from January 26, 2013 are the “unaltered” versions.
16
Colorado City produced these unaltered versions to the United States in November
17
2014. The United States has thus had these reports and calls for several months. It also
18
has what it believes are the “altered” reports and calls. As a result, the United States can
19
conduct a page-by-page comparison between the “unaltered” reports and calls and the 20 “altered” reports and call to determine whether any material alterations actually occurred. 21 Colorado City is confident that none have, but the United States has the documents in its
22 possession to make that determination for itself. And, certainly, the United States’
23 inability to thus far inform this Court and Colorado City that it has actually located a

24 material alteration to any report or call is consistent with the police officers’ affidavits that

25 no material alterations occurred.

26

C. Three-Month Gap.

27

In its February 11, 2015 Order, this Court recognized that, based upon the hard-

28 copies already produced, “the information gap is about three months: January 26, 2013 to

5

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607 Filed 03/20/15 Page 6 of 9
April 23, 2103.” See Order [Doc. 578], at p. 2. Colorado City hoped that In-Synch
1
Systems could help fill this gap, but the bug prevents it from doing so. However, the
2
United States has still not suffered any undue prejudice for several reasons. First, the
3
United States already has in its possession all the reports and calls from January 26, 2013
4
to April 23, 2013. It can review these reports and calls to determine whether any incident
5
is relevant to its claims in this case. Second, if it locates a relevant report or call, it can 6 then contact In-Synch Systems and request (at its own cost, now) that In-Synch Systems 7 determine whether any modification was made to that report or call, which user account 8 made the modification, when the modification was made, the text field modifications 9 made, and the linked records removed. According to In-Synch Systems’ report, it can
10 provide all this information to the United States. Third, the United States has the police
11 officers’ affidavits, which explain what changes they made to any remaining reports or
12 calls in April 2013 and why they made those changes. See Second Joint Status Report 13 [Doc. 577], at pp. 10 – 11. And fourth, the United States can speak to its own expert 14 witness, who testified during his deposition that the police officers’ conduct after 15 Colorado City received the United States’ discovery request was proper. Id. By taking
these steps, the United States can obtain all the information it seeks for the three-month
16
gap at issue.
17
D. Conclusion.
18
Colorado City denies that its police officers made any material alterations to reports
19
or calls. But Colorado City also understands that the United States has a different opinion. 20 Colorado City has therefore done everything it can to try and locate old versions of reports 21 and calls so that the United States can compare these prior versions with the current 22 versions to determine whether any material alterations were made. The United States’ 23 request for production covered a three-year period, from January 1, 2010 to April 23,
24 2013. Colorado City produced prior versions of all reports and calls for January 1, 2010
25 to January 26, 2013. This timeframe is therefore no longer at issue. For the remaining
26 three-month period, Colorado City produced affidavits from its police officers and worked 27 with In-Synch Systems, which confirms that it can provide additional information
28
6

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607 Filed 03/20/15 Page 7 of 9

regarding whether any modification was made to any report or call for this three-month
1
period (and any period thereafter).
2
For these reasons, Colorado City requests that this Court deny the United States’
3
request for a missing-evidence instruction because the evidence is not missing and
4
Colorado City has not engaged in any willful misconduct or bad faith. If the United States
5
wants to still argue at trial that Colorado City altered police reports, it can do so, and
6 Colorado City will have the opportunity to present evidence to defend against this
7 argument. The jury will then serve as the ultimate factfinder on this issue and give it

8 whatever weight it deems appropriate during its deliberations on the pending claims.

9

10

Respectfully submitted,

11 FOR THE UNITED STATES:

12

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM

13

Chief

Housing and Civil Enforcement Section

14

15

JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief

16

Special Litigation Section

17

R. TAMAR HAGLER

18

CHRISTY E. LOPEZ

Deputy Chiefs

19

ERIC W. TREENE

Special Counsel
20

21

/s/ Sean R. Keveney

22

SEAN R. KEVENEY

JESSICA C. CROCKETT

23

MATTHEW J. DONNELLY

24

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

25

Washington, DC 20530

Phone:

(202) 514-4838

26

Facsimile: (202) 514-1116

27

E-mail: matthew.donnelly@usdoj.gov

28

7

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607 Filed 03/20/15 Page 8 of 9

FOR COLORADO CITY:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

/s/ Jeffrey C. Matura with permission Jeffrey C. Matura Asha Sebastian Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Attorneys for Defendant Town of Colorado City
8

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607 Filed 03/20/15 Page 9 of 9

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I certify that on March 20, 2015, I caused a copy of the foregoing Third Joint

Status Report Concerning Altered Police Reports to be sent via the Court’s ECF system

3 to the following:

4

Jeffrey C. Matura

5

Asha Sebastian

Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C.

6

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

7

Attorneys for Defendant Town of Colorado City

8
R. Blake Hamilton

9

Ashley M. Gregson

Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C.

10

111 East Broadway, Suite 900

11

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Attorneys for Defendants City of Hildale, Twin City Water Authority, and Twin

12

City Power

13

14

15

/s/ Sean R. Keveney SEAN R. KEVENEY

16

Attorney for the United States

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607-1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit A

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607-1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 4

Keveney, Sean R (CRT)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Kirk Farra [Kirk.Farra@in-synch.com] Wednesday, March 11, 2015 5:47 AM Jeff Matura; Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com); Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Crockett, Jessica (CRT) RE: U.S. v. Colorado City, et al. Answers to questions in court order.pdf

Importance:

High

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Follow up Flagged

All,  Ourresponsetothequestionsposedinthecourtorderareintheattacheddocument.  Regards,  Kirk  
Kirk Farra
President In-Synch Systems, LLC www.in-synchrms.com Kirk.Farra@in-synch.com Phone: 800-243-6540 x 103
  From:JeffMatura[mailto:JMatura@gbmlawpc.com] Sent:Thursday,February12,201511:56AM To:Keveney,SeanR(CRT);KirkFarra Cc:BlakeHamilton(bhamilton@djplaw.com);Donnelly,Matthew(CRT);Crockett,Jessica(CRT) Subject:RE:U.S.v.ColoradoCity,etal.  Kirk:
I was drafting an e-mail to you when I received Sean Keveney’s below e-mail. As Sean mentioned, the Court in our case issued an order regarding Colorado City’s continued efforts to work with In-Synch Systems. Pursuant to that order (which is attached to Sean’s e-mail), Colorado City requests that In-Synch Systems determine the following:
1. When the defect was introduced into the Town’s software program for police reports.
2. Whether or not that defect will in fact preclude recovery of the missing police report data.
3. When the defect was cured.
4. If the defect was cured prior to January 26, 2013, can In-Synch Systems recover unaltered police report data entered between January 26 and April 23, 2013.
Can you please confirm for us that In-Synch Systems is willing to answer these questions? The Court also asked that this work be done within 30 days. Can In-Synch Systems meet that deadline? Finally, as stated in the Court’s order, Colorado City will pay In-Synch Systems for its time to answer these questions.
1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607-1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 3 of 4
If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks.
Jeffrey C. Matura Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Direct: 602-792-5721 Fax: 602-792-5710 E-Mail: jmatura@gbmlawpc.com
This electronic message and any attachments contain information that is or may be legally privileged, confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure. The message and attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me immediately so that any mistake in transmission can be corrected, and then delete the message and any attachments from your system.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with IRS requirements, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (b) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
From: Keveney, Sean R (CRT) [mailto:Sean.R.Keveney@usdoj.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:46 AM To: Kirk Farra Cc: Jeff Matura; Blake Hamilton (bhamilton@djplaw.com); Donnelly, Matthew (CRT); Crockett, Jessica (CRT) Subject: U.S. v. Colorado City, et al.  Kirk,
The Court in our case issued the attached order yesterday evening.
Thanks,
Sean
________________ Sean R. Keveney Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4838
2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 607-1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 4 of 4

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 891 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs.

)

)

TOWN OF COLORADO CITY, ARIZONA; )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

No. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division)

O R D E R Municipal Liability Instruction The parties disagree as to how the court should instruct the jury with respect to municipal liability based upon 42 U.S.C. § 14141. The court included defendants’ proposed Instruction No. 151 in its initial, proposed jury instructions.2 The court called for and has received briefing from the parties with respect to the foregoing. Defendants would have the court import Section 1983 concepts – having to do with vicarious liability of municipalities for the bad conduct of individual police officers – into the enforcement of Section 14141. Defendants’ contention is based largely upon a report and recommendation which was never approved by the district court in United States v. City of Columbus, Ohio, 2000 WL 1133166 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2000) . The focal points of Section 1983 law and Section 14141 are quite different. Section 1983 law,

1Docket No. 797 at 22.

2Docket No. 872-1 at 37-38.

Order – Municipal Liability Instruction

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 891 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 2
based principally upon Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), protects municipalities from general vicarious liability for the acts of police officers. Under Section 14141, municipalities are simply not exposed to the isolated bad acts of municipal employees, for the statute creates municipal liability only where a municipality has been shown to have engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct violating the United States Constitution.
For the reasons and upon the authorities discussed by the United States in its brief,3 the court concludes that defendants’ proposed Instruction No. 154 should not be given.
DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 12th day of February, 2016.
/s/ H. Russel Holland United States District Judge

3Docket No. 880.

4Docket No. 797 at 22.

Order – Municipal Liability Instruction

- 2 -

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 1 of 54

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs.

)

)

TOWN OF COLORADO CITY, ARIZONA, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

No. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division)

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF The constitutional right to free exercise of religion, on the one hand, and the statutory right to housing and constitutional policing, on the other hand, are vitally important to a viable, peaceful community. In Colorado City, Arizona, and the City of Hildale, Utah, those rights have come into conflict over access to residential housing and services. Denial of housing rights and lawful policing to some residents at the behest of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“FLDS Church”) has cost the cities dearly – millions of dollars – in the past. When a disastrous flood hit the cities, the residents came together and successfully addressed their losses. It is now time for the citizens of Colorado City and City of Hildale to come together and accept the fact that communal ownership of residential property in the Defendant Cities is a thing of the past. All residents of the Defendant Cities must be afforded equal access to housing and residential services, to nondiscriminatory law

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 2 of 54

enforcement, and to free exercise of their religious preferences that are not contrary to law. By this judgment and decree, the court hopes to assist the Defendant Cities and their residents in advancing the protection of civil rights to which they are entitled.
I. PROCEEDINGS This case began with the filing of a complaint by the United States of America seeking enforcement of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Policing Act), 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (plaintiff’s first cause of action); the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. (plaintiff’s second cause of action); and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000b (plaintiff’s third cause of action). During the development of the case, plaintiff’s third cause of action based upon 42 U.S.C. § 2000b was dismissed.1 The case went forward as to three named defendants: Town of Colorado City, Arizona; City of Hildale, Utah; and Twin City Water Authority, Inc.2 After extensive discovery and motion practice, the case went to trial on January 19, 2016. Plaintiff’s Fair Housing claim was tried to a jury. Plaintiff’s policing claim was tried to the same jury on an advisory basis. On March 7, 2016, the jury returned unanimous verdicts in favor of the United States and against Colorado City, City of Hildale, and Twin City Water Authority with respect to plaintiff’s Fair Housing Act claim. As to each defendant, the jury determined that the respective defendants had

1See Order (Motions to Dismiss) at 7, Docket No. 38. Plaintiff declined to file an amended claim under Section 2000b. Notice Regarding Claim, Docket No. 46.
2Plaintiff’s claims as to a fourth defendant, Twin City Power, were abandoned by plaintiff. Twin City Water Authority has been dissolved and the water utility is now operated by the Defendant Cities.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 3 of 54
“engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violated the federal Fair Housing Act
by:”
making housing unavailable or denying housing opportunities to individuals because of religion[;]
discriminating against non-FLDS individuals in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of religion[; and]
coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with an individual in the exercise or enjoyment of the right to equal housing opportunities or the right to equal treatment in the terms, conditions, privileges, and services in connection with housing, or on account of that individual having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of those rights.[3]
Having determined liability against the defendants, the jury awarded “damages” for
emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment in the total amount of $2,215,000 in
favor of six identified victims of the defendants’ Fair Housing Act violations. While the
jury was deliberating as to the Fair Housing Act claim, plaintiff and defendants entered
into an oral settlement by which the defendants agreed to pay plaintiff (and the victims)
the total sum of $1,600,000 on account of Fair Housing Act violations by the defendants
and in satisfaction of all monetary claims of plaintiff against the Defendant Cities. That settlement was reduced to writing4 and was approved by the court.5 The settlement left
open the matter of injunctive relief for Fair Housing Act violations by the Defendant
Cities, a subject taken up in this judgment and decree.

3See Verdict Forms 7, 9, and 11, Docket No. 932. 4Docket No. 938-1. 5Docket No. 938.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 3 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 4 of 54

With respect to plaintiff’s policing claim, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, the advisory jury found that the Colorado City Marshal’s Office (“CCMO”), which serves both Colorado City and the City of Hildale, engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution;6 engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution in three respects: unreasonable seizure of property, unreasonable seizure of a person, and arrest made without probable cause;7 and engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.8 The advisory jury rejected plaintiff’s contention that CCMO officers engaged in unreasonable searches of property, unreasonable investigatory stops, or use of excessive force in making a lawful arrest or other seizure or detention.
By order of March 25, 2016,9 the court put in place a schedule for further proceedings with respect to injunctive relief sought by plaintiff based upon the Fair Housing Act violations determined by the jury and the jury’s advisory findings with respect to policing. That schedule culminated in an evidentiary hearing commenced on October 24, 2016, and concluded on October 27, 2016. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, provision was made for the filing of written closing arguments. Arguments were completed by January 24, 2017, and the matter of injunctive relief is now under advisement.

6Verdict Form 1, Docket No. 932. 7Verdict Form 3, Docket No. 932. 8Verdict Form 5, Docket No. 932. 9Docket No. 936.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 4 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 5 of 54
II. FINDINGS OF FACT – BACKGROUND (1) The Town of Colorado City is a municipal entity organized under the laws of the State of Arizona. Colorado City was incorporated in 1985. The City of Hildale was organized under the laws of the State of Utah. The Defendant Cities share a common boundary, which is also the boundary between the states of Arizona and Utah. The Defendant Cities have separate city councils, mayors, and managers. (2) Defendant Twin City Water Authority was an entity operated by Colorado City for purposes of supplying potable water to residents of the Defendant Cities. (3) The Defendant Cities jointly fund the Colorado City Marshal’s Office which provides law enforcement for both Defendant Cities. The CCMO currently employs a chief marshal, a sergeant, and five deputy officers. The chief marshal of Colorado City is also the chief of police for Hildale. CCMO officers are employees of the Town of Colorado City. At the time of trial, the CCMO consisted of Chief Jerry Darger (brother of Colorado City town manager, David Darger), Sergeant Sam Johnson, and Deputies Chris Cooke, Hyrum Roundy, Jacob Barlow, Jr., Daniel Musser, Daniel Roy “DR” Barlow, and Shem Jessop. Colorado City operates a dispatch center that provides emergency services (police, fire, medical) for both Colorado City and the City of Hildale. (4) The Colorado City town council has the authority to hire new police officers. The chief marshal has the authority to discipline or terminate police officers subject to applicable grievance procedures. CCMO officers are certified in both Utah and Arizona. The Arizona POST (Peace Officers Standards and Training) is a state agency that certifies police officers to work in Arizona. Utah POST is a state agency that

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 5 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 6 of 54
certifies police officers who work in Utah. The CCMO officers are dually certified by the Arizona and Utah POSTs.
(5) Colorado City and the City of Hildale are sometimes collectively referred to as “Short Creek.” The Short Creek community was established as a fundamentalist Mormon settlement in the late 1920s. The community is predominantly composed of fundamentalist Mormons, many of whom belong to the FLDS Church.
(6) The FLDS Church is led by a prophet. From 1986 until 2002, Rulon Jeffs was the prophet of the FLDS Church. Following his death in 2002, his son, Warren Jeffs, succeeded him as prophet. Warren Jeffs is in federal prison, from which he has continued to communicate with FLDS Church members in Short Creek. The FLDS Church in Short Creek also has a bishop. From1936 until 2003, Fred Jessop served as bishop of the community. William E. Jessop succeeded Fred Jessop, serving until 2007. Lyle Jeffs succeeded William E. Jessop as bishop, and appears to have served as bishop through the trial of this case. Lyle Jeffs is under indictment for food stamp fraud in Utah and has absconded from pretrial release.
(7) The early settlers of Short Creek decided for religious reasons to hold real property in common and, to accomplish this, created a religious land trust: the United Effort Plan Trust (“UEP Trust”). The UEP Trust was organized under the laws of the State of Utah. The UEP Trust was formed to hold, manage, and distribute real property and other religious consecrations. The UEP Trust made real property and other consecrated property available to members of the FLDS Church on a need basis. It was and is a principal tenet of the FLDS Church that all property of members be consecrated to the church.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 6 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 7 of 54
(8) In 2005, at the request of the State of Utah, the Utah probate court took
control of the UEP Trust away from the FLDS Church and appointed Bruce Wisan, an
accountant from Salt Lake City, as the trustee or special fiduciary to oversee the UEP
Trust property. The UEP Trust is required to operate as a religiously neutral entity.
Mr. Wisan served as the special fiduciary for the UEP Trust until 2015, at which time he
began to transition management and control to a board of trustees.
(9) The FLDS Church leadership and members have vigorously opposed Utah’s
assumption of control of the UEP Trust. Members were instructed not to respond and not
to cooperate with anyone with respect to the neutral operation of the UEP Trust.
Members were directed not to associate with Bruce Wisan. Members were directed to
stop developing the community and to contribute their assets to a different project of the
FLDS Church in Texas.
(10) FLDS Church opposition to the UEP Trust was formalized in November of
2008 in an effort to secure the removal of Bruce Wisan as the UEP Trust administrator.
FLDS Church members signed a “Declaration of Beneficiaries” which stated in part:
1. I am aware of the original intent of the settlors of the United Effort Plan Trust (the “UEP”) and have consecrated my time, talents, materials, monies, and property to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the “Church”). I am a voluntary member of the Church which is an association formed by our mutual consent to promote our common objective to ensure that the UEP is administered in compliance with constitutional requirements and in a manner that meets our “just wants and needs.”
2. As a member of the Church I am a beneficiary of the UEP and have seen the effects of the administration of the UEP by the States of Utah and Arizona which have taken the management of the UEP away from the Church ... and which prevents the UEP from meeting my “just wants and needs” ....

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 7 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 8 of 54

5. I am opposed to the sale of any sacred or consecrated UEP Property including, Sacred Sites, Harker Farm, and Berry Knoll Farm without the approval of the Church.[10] (11) Beginning in 2008, under the direction of the Utah probate judge and Mr. Wisan, the UEP Trust began requiring occupants of Trust property to execute occupancy agreements in order to live in a home on Trust property. Occupancy agreement holders were to pay $100 a month, plus a share of real estate taxes assessed by the county, to live on a Trust property. At various times, FLDS Church members refused to sign occupancy agreements and/or refused to pay the $100-a-month occupancy fee. At other times, members of the FLDS Church signed occupancy agreements as a means of maintaining control of property. The FLDS Church has caused its members to move from one UEP Trust property to another UEP Trust property without involving the Trust or securing permission from the Trust as owner of the property. (12) The UEP Trust’s use of occupancy agreements and Mr. Wisan’s efforts to enforce those occupancy agreements have led to much civil disobedience and unrest. There has been vandalism of property occupied by non-FLDS Church members. CCMO officers have been heavily involved in disagreements between FLDS Church members who have occupied Colorado City properties as to which others have occupancy agreements. Mr. Wisan’s efforts to employ self-help in gaining control of UEP Trust property have sometimes gone awry because of spurious claims of FLDS Members and due to discriminatory policing by CCMO officers. Rather than endeavoring to keep the peace, officers have sometimes inappropriately taken sides in occupancy disputes, and have engaged in unreasonable arrests of non-FLDS Church members. In short, control of

10United States’ Admitted Trial Exhibit 43.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 8 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 9 of 54

Colorado City property is at the heart of the problems which have arisen with respect to housing and policing in Colorado City.
(13) The ownership of land in Colorado City is a patchwork of properties, the majority of which is owned by the UEP Trust. There has not been a formal subdivision of Colorado City properties; however a de facto subdivision has developed over time. With the assistance of professional engineers employed by the UEP Trust and Colorado City, a proposed subdivision plat was developed. Had that process been completed, the Trust would be in a position to convey legal title to residential properties in place of the current occupancy permits. Just prior to a final meeting that was intended to finalize the proposed subdivision plat, representatives of the Trust and Colorado City (other than the engineers) became involved. As part of a pattern or practice of conduct that violated the Fair Housing Act by making housing unavailable or denying housing opportunities to individuals because of religion, Colorado City withdrew its support for developing a recordable subdivision plat for Colorado City properties.
(14) As prophet of the FLDS Church of Short Creek, Warren Jeffs assumed sweeping powers over the persons and properties of FLDS Church members. His directions as regards interaction of spouses, communal work projects, and consecration of property were enforced by threat of excommunication that would involve separation of spouses and their families, loss of employment, and banishment from the Short Creek community.
(15) In 2004, the FLDS Church organized a formal security force for purposes of providing protection to FLDS Church leaders and to keep the leadership informed as to events taking place in the community. A primary purpose of the FLDS Church security force was to afford leaders an opportunity and time to escape intervention from outside

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 9 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 10 of 54

law enforcement. By 2007, the FLDS Church security had expanded to several hundred members, some of whom were CCMO officers, and organized into teams assigned to shifts and captains. City-owned cameras located on city property were connected to a control room at the FLDS Church “Meeting House.” Church officials, with direct assistance from CCMO officers, were able to monitor attendance at meetings and monitor comings and goings within the community. Both CCMO officers and Church officials surveilled non-FLDS Church residents, UEP Trust representatives, and county law enforcement.
(16) Control of FLDS Church membership was further expanded beginning in 2010 through the creation of an elite sub-group of the FLDS Church known as the “United Order.” Members entered into covenants precluding disclosure of their membership in the United Order or discussion of the doctrines of the United Order with anyone, including outside law enforcement officers. Members of the United Order were required to consecrate everything they owned (real estate and personal property) to the FLDS Church, where the property was inventoried and placed in the “Storehouse.” Members were not supposed to obtain food or any other necessities other than from the Storehouse. A member who fell out of favor with the FLDS Church leadership could be excluded from the United Order, which appears to have been the functional equivalent of excommunication from the FLDS Church. Loss of United Order membership could lead to loss of family and loss of access to the Storehouse.
III. FAIR HOUSING ACT A. Law. The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a), provides in pertinent part that:

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 10 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 11 of 54

Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights granted by this subchapter, or that any group of persons has been denied any of the rights granted by this subchapter and such denial raises an issue of general public importance, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States district court.
Section 3614(d) of the Fair Housing Act further provides:
(1) In a civil action under subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the court –
(A) may award such preventive relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person responsible for a violation of this subchapter as is necessary to assure the full enjoyment of the rights granted by this subchapter[.]
Based upon the court’s instructions,11 the jury determined that the Town of
Colorado City and City of Hildale and Twin City Water Authority violated the Fair
Housing Act in the particulars set out above.12 The jury awarded and the court approved
damages in favor of identified victims. In accordance with Section 3614(d)(1)(A) of the
Fair Housing Act, it is for the court to decide what (if any) additional remedies should be
imposed upon the defendants.
B. Discussion.
Plaintiff argues that the court should permanently enjoin the Defendant Cities from
violating the Fair Housing Act, especially as regards non-FLDS individuals, in the
provision of housing, utilities, and other municipal services. Plaintiff specifically urges
the court to order: (1) that the Defendant Cities adopt new policies, procedures, and
ordinances as regards municipal services, land use, and training, (2) that Colorado City

11See Jury Instruction No. 38, Docket No. 913-1. 12See supra p. 3. JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 11 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 12 of 54
approve the UEP Trust subdivision proposal, (3) that the Defendant Cities adopt new policies and procedures for handling building permits, and (4) that the Defendant Cities abandon discriminatory water policies and establish a new, nondiscriminatory, water policy. Plaintiff urges the court to appoint a monitor to oversee Fair Housing Act related injunctive relief.13
The Defendant Cities argue that additional injunctive relief as regards the Fair Housing Act, beyond that imposed by Judge Teilborg in Cooke v. Town of Colorado City, is unnecessary.14 The Defendant Cities contend that to do otherwise would cause confusion. The Defendant Cities argue for various reasons that the court should not involve itself in the subdividing of Colorado City property. The Defendant Cities argue that no injunctive relief is necessary as regards building permits. The Defendant Cities argue that they have already revised their domestic water supply regulations to ensure fair treatment of customers, and that there is no legitimate dispute as regards impact fees for new water connections. The Defendant Cities argue that a monitor is unnecessary.15
Cooke involved a single victim and Colorado City’s failure to supply utilities in violation of the Fair Housing Act. This case involves multiple victims and multiple Fair Housing Act violations with respect to housing and services in the Defendant Cities. The court is persuaded that the jury’s findings demand injunctive relief. Imposition of only

13See United States’ Post-trial Brief Regarding Injunctive Relief at 20-22, Docket No. 939.
14See Amended Judgment and Permanent Injunction (dated Nov. 25, 2014), Docket No. 723 in 3:10-cv-08105-JAT Cooke v. Town of Colorado City.
15See Defendants’ Joint Closing Argument Regarding Injunctive Relief at 24-25, Docket No. 1023.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 12 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 13 of 54

the general injunctive relief contained in Cooke will not suffice. A more specific injunction will not cause confusion.
Beyond a general prohibition of Fair Housing Act violations, resolution of the disagreement between Colorado City and the UEP Trust as regards the subdivision of Colorado City property is the most urgent problem. That disagreement substantially and adversely affects the occupancy and availability of residential properties (housing) for all residents of Colorado City.
Colorado City has adopted a subdivision ordinance, the legality of which is in litigation in Maricopa County Superior Court. The validity of the Colorado City subdivision ordinance is not a relevant issue in this Fair Housing Act case, nor is there any need for the court to resolve that matter for purposes of this case. Irrespective of whether the Colorado City subdivision ordinance is or is not valid, legally enforceable property descriptions are a necessary predicate to stabilizing residential property occupancy and availability in Colorado City, free of discrimination based on religious differences.
Without a resolution regarding the subdividing of Colorado City property, the use of UEP Trust occupancy agreements will continue. The FLDS Church’s opposition to the UEP Trust is enabled by uncertainty as to the enforceability of occupancy agreements in Colorado City. Subdivision of Colorado City residential property will further validate the UEP Trust’s ownership of property and diminish the FLDS Church’s ability to disrupt or impede transfer of title to residential properties to residents of Colorado City.
The UEP Trust’s engineer (Renstrom) believes that a subdivision plat is ready for recording. The court has not seen and doubts that there is in existence a Colorado City subdivision plat which Colorado City could be ordered to approve for recording. It will

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 13 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 14 of 54
therefore be necessary for the UEP Trust and Colorado City to restart the process of finalizing a subdivision plat for Colorado City. Inasmuch as the UEP Trust is not a party to this case, the court is not in a position to order that it participate in the process of completing a subdivision plat. Nevertheless, the court believes that self-interest will dictate that the UEP Trust cooperate with plaintiff and Colorado City in producing a recordable subdivision plat.
The court rejects the Defendant Cities’ contention that no injunctive relief is necessary as regards building permits. A requirement that the legal owner of property join in a building permit application will prevent the issuance of permits for the improvement of UEP Trust property by those who have no right to do so for lack of an occupancy permit. At present, building officials can turn a blind eye on applications to improve property by persons having no right to do so. A requirement that the legal owner sign a building permit application will impose no significant burden on either permit applicants or Colorado City.
As regards Colorado City water regulations, the initiation, termination, and/or transfer of domestic water service has been a source of Fair Housing Act violations. Plaintiff recognizes that defendant Colorado City has abandoned a former discriminatory water policy. Plaintiff argues, however, that the discriminatory ordinances remain on the books. They must be repealed. Under the court’s general injunction against Fair Housing Act violations, the Defendant Cities must of course apply their existing water connection transfer policies in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Existing policies need to be reviewed and amended to assure the Defendant Cities’ future compliance with the Fair Housing Act obligations.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 14 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 15 of 54
As a consequence of the decision in Cooke, Colorado City abandoned a discriminatory water policy and adopted an impact fee system for new water connections. Applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion, impact fees are an appropriate basis for a municipality making new water connections available However, as a consequence of evidence produced by plaintiff during the remedies hearing, it became apparent to the court that there is reason to believe that the current impact fee of $12,000 may be unnecessarily high.16 In light of the jury’s finding that Colorado City engaged in a pattern or practice of restricting equal treatment and access to services in connection with housing, a review of Colorado City’s entire water policy, including the current impact fee, is in order.
In light of the long history of antagonism between the FLDS Church and nonmembers, and in particular as a consequence of the entanglement of the FLDS Church and the Defendant Cities, and in light of the history of Fair Housing Act violations, a general review of the Defendant Cities’ policies, procedures, and ordinances as regards non-discrimination in municipal services, land use, and training of city employees is in order. Engagement of an independent monitor by the Defendant Cities for purposes of assessing compliance with the court’s injunction and the requirements of the Fair Housing Act is deemed both appropriate and necessary.

16Although the current impact fee was the result of the work of a professional engineer, it appears that the data furnished to the engineer by the Defendant Cities failed to segregate usage by residential customers from the usage of commercial or industrial customers, with the result that usage of residential customers was distorted upward. In addition, there was testimony that water rights held by the UEP Trust might be made available to Defendant Cities on terms that could reduce the overall cost of water service.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 15 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 16 of 54

IV.
POLICING ACT
A. Law. The “pattern or practice” part of the Policing Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 14141(a), provides:
It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers ... that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Section 14141(b) authorizes civil actions by the Attorney General for violation of
subsection (a), and provides that “the United States, may in a civil action obtain
appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.” Based upon detailed instructions,17 the trial jury rendered three advisory verdicts
against the Defendant Cities. The jury was satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence
that the marshal’s office of Colorado City and City of Hildale had engaged in a pattern or
practice of violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.18 The jury was satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence
that the marshal’s office of Colorado City and City of Hildale had engaged in a pattern or
practice of violating the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution because of
the unreasonable seizure of property, unreasonable seizure of a person, and arrest without probable cause.19 As regards the Fourth Amendment, the jury advised that the marshal’s

17See Jury Instruction Nos. 25 through 35. Docket No. 913-1. 18See Verdict Forms 1, 5, Docket No. 932. 19See Verdict Form 1, Docket No. 932. JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 16 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 17 of 54

office had not engaged in unreasonable searches of property, had not made unreasonable investigatory stops or used excessive force in making a lawful arrest or other seizure or detention.20
The court and plaintiff disagreed on one aspect of the Policing Act instructions employed by the court. The court specifically instructed the jury that:
A pattern or practice may not be established by combining a violation of one constitutional amendment with violations of another constitutional amendment.[21] Even if erroneous, the court’s instruction does plaintiff no harm. The jury found that a pattern or practice of unlawful policing had been established as regards all three of plaintiff’s constitutional claims. A finding by the advisory jury and/or court of a pattern or practice of violating any one of the three constitutional amendments in question would entitle plaintiff to relief; and knowing the jury’s thinking about the separate constitutional claims has informed the court as to the jury’s thinking as to each amendment, which in turn will help inform the court as regards the nature and extent of remedies to be imposed. B. Findings of Fact. Except as expressly stated below, the court adopts the jury’s advisory verdicts with respect to violations of 42 U.S.C. § 14141.22 As expressly stated below, the court adopts the plaintiff’s detailed findings of fact. The court makes the following summary findings with respect to the Defendant Cities’ violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

20Id. 21Jury Instruction No. 26, Docket No. 913-1. 22Verdict Forms 1, 3, and 5, Docket No. 932. JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 17 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 18 of 54

Violation of the Establishment Clause (1) The CCMO and other city officials subscribed to the beliefs of and were subject to pressure from the FLDS Church.23 (2) The CCMO officers and city officials personally opposed the non-FLDS administration of the UEP Trust.24 (3) The FLDS Church selected and controlled the CCMO and city officials.25 (4) City officials sought and received direction regarding their official duties from the FLDS Church.26 (5) The CCMO is entangled with FLDS security.27 (a) The CCMO and FLDS Church security worked together to guard FLDS leadership and monitor outside law enforcement in the cities.28 (b) The CCMO improperly provided training and equipment to FLDS security.29 (c) The CCMO illegally shared law enforcement information with FLDS Church security.30

23United States’ Digest of Proposed Findings of Fact, Docket No. 1022-2, ¶¶ 64 to 72.
24Id., ¶¶ 73 to 79. 25Id., ¶¶ 80 to 99. 26Id., ¶¶ 100 to 127. 27Id., ¶¶ 128 to 130. 28Id., ¶¶ 131 to 135. 29Id., ¶¶ 136 to 143. 30Id., ¶¶ 144 to 149.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 18 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 19 of 54

(d) The CCMO aided FLDS Church security’s harassment of non-FLDS members.31
(6) CCMO officers and other city officials communicated with and financially supported FLDS Church’s Prophet Warren Jeffs while he was a federal fugitive.32
(7) The Defendant Cities engaged in the religiously biased hiring of three CCMO officers in 2014.33
(8) Based upon the foregoing findings, the Defendant Cities, through the CCMO, engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That pattern or practice fostered excessive government entanglement with religion – a fusion of government and religion – that had the purpose or effect of endorsing, favoring, or promoting the FLDS Church at the expense of non-FLDS residents of the Defendant Cities.
Violation of Equal Protection Clause (9) The foregoing findings as regards the Establishment Clause are relevant with respect to equal protection, for those findings reflect that FLDS Church leadership insisted upon city officials and CCMO officers advancing church and church members’ interests in preference to the needs and interests of non-FLDS Church residents of the Defendant Cities. (10) CCMO officers turned a blind eye to criminal activity involving FLDS Church leaders or members. The officers supported Warren Jeffs when he was a

31Id., ¶¶ 150 to 152. 32Id., ¶¶ 153 to 169. 33Id., ¶¶ 170 to 185. JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 19 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 20 of 54

fugitive,34 ignored underage marriages,35 ignored unauthorized distribution of prescription drugs,36 ignored food stamp fraud,37 and failed to cite or arrest the son of a church bishop.38
(11) CCMO officers stood by while FLDS Church security effected a burglary at R&W Excavation, which had the purpose of stealing evidence of criminal activity by FLDS Church leader Warren Jeffs that had been gathered by a former FLDS Church member and owner of the R&W business.39 There were continuing efforts by CCMO officers to prevent the owner of R&W from recovering the materials that he had gathered. CCMO officers refused to provide police protection to R&W’s owner and allowed FLDS Church security to steal records a second time.
(12) CCMO policing – especially as to land access and use – was heavily slanted in favor of the FLDS Church and its members and against non-FLDS residents of the Defendant Cities. CCMO officers failed to provide effective police services to nonFLDS Church members and the UEP Trust and its representatives. In particular, officers arrested and harassed non-FLDS individuals for alleged trespassing on property, for which they had UEP Trust issued occupancy agreements, while accepting FLDS members’ spurious occupancy claims, and otherwise assisting FLDS Church members in resisting the transfer of possession of UEP Trust property to non-FLDS members.

34Id., ¶ 193. 35Id., ¶ 194. 36Id., ¶ 204. 37Id., ¶ 209. 38Id., ¶ 221. 39Id., ¶ 226.
JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 20 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 21 of 54
Overall, there was a lack of training as regards investigation and handling of landlord/tenant/trespass incidents, and CCMO reporting and record-keeping procedures were sloppy. CCMO handling of civil disobedience by FLDS members, especially as regards the occupancy of property, was inept and violative of non-FLDS residents’ equal protection rights. Reports were sometimes not timely completed. Other reports were modified without preservation of the originals.40
(13) CCMO officers refused to provide police services to UEP Trust’s agent Wyler, who was viewed as an apostate working for the non-FLDS Trust.41
(14) CCMO officers harassed and arrested or threatened to arrest Bishop William E. Jessop, failed to provide services and arrested Richard Holm, and arrested Jerold N. Williams because of their status as excommunicated FLDS members.42
(15) CCMO officers ordered Christopher Jessop off property he occupied under a UEP Trust occupancy agreement on the theory that it was “church property.”43
(16) CCMO officers discriminated against non-FLDS member Guy Timpson by unreasonably arresting him in 2014 for trespass on a UEP property for which he had obtained an occupancy agreement while Timpson was in the process of posting an eviction notice to remove the occupant of the property who was a brother of FLDS leaders.44

40Id., ¶¶ 263 to 274. 41Id., ¶¶ 275 to 288. 42Id., ¶¶ 289 to 339. 43Id., ¶¶ 340 to 348. 44Id., ¶¶ 349 to 356. JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 21 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 22 of 54
(17) CCMO officers blocked non-FLDS member Patrick Pipkin from entering his home in 2005, even when he obtained a UEP occupancy agreement, because Church leaders had directed Pipkin to leave the home and community.45
(18) CCMO officers unreasonably arrested non-FLDS members Patrick Pipkin and Andrew Chatwin twice for trespassing after they had completed a commercial eviction for the UEP property formerly used as a zoo.46
(19) Based on the foregoing findings, the Defendant Cities’ CCMO engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by selectively enforcing the law based upon religion.
Violation of Fourth Amendment (20) CCMO officers properly came into possession of a horse owned by Lydia Stubbs. The defendants wrongfully seized the horse by causing it to be euthanized, despite the fact that CCMO officers knew that Lydia Stubbs was owner of the horse.47 (21) The advisory jury found that the CCMO violated the Fourth Amendment by the unauthorized seizure of a person. The court believes that this finding was based upon the brief detention of Steven Bateman. The advisory jury also found that plaintiff had not established any unreasonable investigatory stop. The court finds that the CCMO officers’ contact with Mr. Bateman was an investigatory stop which was, under all of the circumstances, not unreasonable in nature or duration. It was not an unauthorized seizure of a person.

45Id., ¶¶ 357 to 360. 46Id., ¶¶ 361 to 388. 47Id., ¶¶ 459 to 468. JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 22 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 23 of 54

(22) The court concurs in the jury’s advisory finding that the CCMO did not engage in the unreasonable search of property, unreasonable investigatory stops, or the use of excessive force in making a lawful arrest. The court further finds that the unlawful arrests effected by CCMO officers did not involve the use of excessive force.
(23) The arrest of Isaac Wyler in September of 2015, the arrest of Patrick Pipkin and Andrew Chatwin in October of 2015, the arrest of Richard Holm in July of 2015, the arrest of Guy Timpson in 2014, the arrest of Jerold N. Williams in 2012, and the arrest of William E. Jessop were all effected without probable cause.48
(24) Based on the foregoing findings, Defendant Cities’ CCMO engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violated the unreasonable seizure of property and arrest without probable cause aspects of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Relief Findings of Fact (25) Whether considered separately or in combination, the evidence produced at trial establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that Colorado City, the City of Hildale, and their CCMO engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (26) The United States Department of Justice has investigated the operations of numerous, large police departments which were alleged to have engaged in discriminatory policing in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141. Despite allegations of extensive and extreme wrongdoing which has led to serious personal injury or death and

48Id., ¶¶ 479 to 484. JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 23 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 24 of 54
rioting with extensive property damage, none of those investigations resulted in the disbandment of local police organizations.
(27) The Defendant Cities’ CCMO has been deficient in many respects as discussed above. The CCMO has suffered an unusually high rate of decertification by the Arizona and/or Utah POST. CCMO policies and training of CCMO officers (especially in the handling of landlord/tenant/trespass matters and the enforcement of UEP occupancy permits) have been deficient. Report-writing and record preservation have been deficient. Oversight of the CCMO by officials of the Defendant Cities has been deficient.
(28) Despite the foregoing deficiencies, the court finds that the problems at the CCMO are not so grave that the court should deprive the citizens of the Defendant Cities of the opportunity to police themselves. The court deems disbandment of the CCMO as a last resort that should be employed only if less drastic remedies fail.
(29) Disbandment of the CCMO and substitution of Mohave County (Arizona) and Washington County (Utah) sheriffs’ deputies would either be unreasonably expensive or would produce a lower level of police protection. Disbandment would approximately double the cost of law enforcement for the Short Creek community or would necessitate a reduction in police protection.
C. Conclusions of Law as to Policing Act. In consideration of the jury’s advisory verdicts49 and the court’s separate fact-finding, the court makes the following conclusions of law.

49Verdict Forms 1, 3, and 5, Docket No. 932. JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 24 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 25 of 54

(1) The CCMO of Colorado City and the City of Hildale violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging in a pattern or practice of policing that violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
(2) The CCMO of Colorado City and the City of Hildale violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging in a pattern or practice of policing that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
(3) The CCMO of Colorado City and the City of Hildale violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging in a pattern or practice of policing that violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution in the following respects: unreasonable seizure of property and arrests without probable cause.
(4) Plaintiff and the Defendant Cities have come forward with separate, competing proposals for injunctive relief: disbandment versus reorganization. Disbandment would in this case be the ultimate sanction and would be disproportionate in light of the nature and seriousness of the Policing Act violations found by the advisory jury and the court. The relief plaintiff seeks is not reasonably tailored to address CCMO wrongdoing. See Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Injunctive relief ... must be tailored to remedy the specific harm alleged.”)
(5) At this time, the court is unwilling to give up on community policing for Short Creek by the Defendant Cities’ CCMO. The court is unpersuaded by plaintiff’s arguments that the CCMO should be disbanded. However, given the nature and extent of the violations of the Policing Act found in connection with the Defendant Cities’ CCMO, simply enjoining future constitutional violations is insufficient. The CCMO’s Chief Marshal and officers are plainly in need of training and supervision. The policies and procedures of the CCMO need to be reviewed and revised as detailed in Section V.B.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 25 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 26 of 54

Engagement of an outside Consultant and independent Mentor for the Chief Marshal by the Defendant Cities for purposes of assuring future compliance with the requirements of the Policing Act, facilitating reformation of the CCMO, and compliance with Section V.B is deemed both appropriate and necessary.
V. REMEDIES A. Law. Each of the Policing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 14141(b), and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(a), authorizes the imposition of injunctive relief. Injunctive relief is generally available where: (1) a plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for the injury; (3) considering the balance of hardships between the parties, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) the public interest would not be disserved by an injunction. eBay, Inc. v. MERCexchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). With respect to the Policing Act, only injunctive relief is available. With respect to the Fair Housing Act, “[t]he primary purpose of an injunction in Fair Housing Act cases is to prevent future violations of the Act and to eliminate any possible recurrence of a discriminatory housing practice.” United States v. Warwick Mobile Home Estates, Inc., 558 F.2d 194, 197 (4th Cir. 1977). In this case, irreparable harm is presumed because the Defendant Cities have violated civil rights statutes. Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs, 251 F.3d 814, 827 (9th Cir. 2001). Only injunctive relief is available for Policing Act violations of constitutional mandates. The monetary remedies that the jury imposed are inadequate to assure the defendant’s future compliance with the Fair Housing Act. Certainly compliance with the Policing Act and Fair Housing Act places a burden upon the Defendant Cities; but compliance with the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act is

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 26 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 27 of 54

obligatory. The Defendant Cities’ failure to comply with the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act unduly burdens the residents of the Defendant Cities. Here the hardships tip sharply in favor of granting an equitable remedy. Finally, the public interest is plainly served by enforcement of the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act.
B. Policing Act Injunction. The advisory jury and court have determined that the Town of Colorado City and City of Hildale (including the CCMO) engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct violating the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In consideration of these violations of 42 U.S.C. § 14141, Colorado City and the City of Hildale (including the CCMO), their officers, employees, and agents, and their successors and all persons in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined as follows:
(1) they shall not engage in any conduct that (a) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the
United States Constitution; or (b) violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution,
including the right of individuals to be free from unreasonable seizures of property and arrests without probable cause; or (c) violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (2) Within 15 days of the date upon which court approval of the selection of a Consultant is granted, Defendant Cities, at their expense, shall engage the services of a professional consultant in the field of policing and compliance with national guidelines for constitutional policing. The parties shall confer regarding the selection of a Consultant and provide the court with an agreed-upon selection within 30 days of the

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 27 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 28 of 54

entry of this injunction. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on a Consultant within 30 days of the entry of this injunction, the parties shall, within 40 days of the entry of this injunction, each submit the name(s) of a potential consultant(s) to the court, and the court shall select one or more persons or entities to serve as the Consultant from among the candidates proposed by the parties.
(3) With the assistance of the Consultant, the Defendant Cities: (a) Within 60 days of the date of engaging the services of a Consultant,
the Defendant Cities shall develop – and upon receipt of approval from the United States shall implement and adhere to – new policies and procedures for hiring new officers. These new policies and procedures shall restructure the hiring committee to remove the Colorado City Town Manager, the Hildale City Manager, and any representative from the Colorado City Town Council and the Hildale City Council from that committee. Once approved, the policies and procedures for hiring new officers shall not be modified, except with the concurrence of the Consultant and the United States, during the term of this injunction. (b) Within 90 days of the date of engaging the services of a Consultant, the Defendant Cities shall advertise and conduct a wide-ranging search for candidates to fill two additional police officer positions. The positions shall be filled within 6 months of engaging the services of a Consultant. (c) Within 60 days of the date of engaging the services of a Consultant, the Defendant Cities shall develop – and upon receipt of approval

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 28 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 29 of 54

from the United States – implement and adhere to new policies and procedures for the conduct of internal affairs investigations. The new policies and procedures shall remove the Colorado City Town Manager, the Hildale City Manager, and any representative from the Colorado City Town Council and the Hildale City Council from being involved in CCMO internal affairs investigations. (d) Within 120 days of the date of engaging the services of a Consultant, the Defendant Cities shall conduct a comprehensive review of all CCMO’s policies and procedures; all CCMO policies and procedures shall be updated and/or revised after consultation with the Consultant and compiled in a single policies and procedures manual. The policies and procedures manual shall, upon receipt of consent from the United States, be adopted within 45 days by the councils of the Defendant Cities. The policies and procedures should, subject to guidance from the Consultant, include guidelines for the search and seizure of property, the seizure of a person, lawful arrest(s), conduct of investigations, report writing, and record preservation. Once approved, any future modifications to the policies and procedures manual shall not take effect without the concurrence of the Consultant and the United States during the term of this injunction. (e) Within 1 year of the date of this injunction, the Defendant Cities shall purchase body cameras for the CCMO officers and implement a pilot program for their use. The Defendant Cities shall also ensure that the new policies and procedures for the CCMO (as discussed in

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 29 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 30 of 54

subsection (d) above) include a policy regarding the use of body cameras and the storage of their data. (f) The Defendant Cities shall provide yearly training to all CCMO officers regarding the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the state and federal Fair Housing Acts, landlord/tenant law, trespass law, and any other topics that the Defendant Cities deem appropriate. The training shall be conducted by a qualified third person or organization other than the Defendant Cities’ attorneys, and the qualified person or organization must be approved in advance by the United States. The training will be of at least three hours’ duration and, at the discretion of the trainer, up to six hours. The Defendant Cities shall bear all costs associated with the training. The Defendant Cities shall seek and obtain approval from the United States for the training syllabus and/or materials before the training is delivered. The Defendant Cities shall also provide a copy of the sign-in sheet from each training session to the United States within 14 days after each training session is complete. The Defendant Cities shall video-record each training session and require each new officer hired since the last training session to watch the recording and receive any materials provided at the training. (g) The Chief Marshal for the CCMO shall seek to meet with the Washington County Sheriff and the Mohave County Sheriff to build a better working relationship and to obtain their input on key law enforcement issues facing the CCMO.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 30 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 31 of 54

(h) Within 15 days of the date upon which court approval of the selection of a Mentor is granted, the Defendant Cities shall hire a Mentor for the Chief Marshal. The parties shall confer regarding the selection of the Mentor and provide the court with an agreed-upon selection within 45 days of the entry of this injunction. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on a Mentor within 45 days of the entry of this injunction, the parties shall, within 60 days of the entry of this injunction, each submit the name(s) of potential mentor(s) to the court, and the court shall select one or more persons or entities to serve as the Mentor from among the candidates proposed by the parties. The Mentor shall come from a nationally-recognized police organization, such as the Police Executive Research Forum or the International Association of Chiefs of Police. This Mentor shall meet with the Chief Marshal at least once a month during the first year from the hiring of the Mentor and advise the Chief Marshal in the performance of his job and the conduct of the CCMO. The Defendant Cities shall pay all costs associated with this Mentor. The length of the contract between the Defendant Cities and the Mentor shall be for at least 1 year, with the option to renew the contract. The Defendant Cities shall provide a copy of this contract to the United States.
C. Fair Housing Act Injunction. The jury has determined that the Town of Colorado City and City of Hildale engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and (b) and § 3617.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 31 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 32 of 54

Section 3614(d)(1)(A) authorizes injunctive relief. In consideration of violations of the Fair Housing Act, Colorado City and the City of Hildale, their officers, employees, and agents, and their successors and all persons in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined as follows:
(1) They shall not engage in any conduct that violates Section 3604(a), (b) or Section 3617 of the Fair Housing Act; in particular, the Defendant Cities are enjoined from:
(a) making housing unavailable or denying housing opportunities to individuals because of religion in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);
(b) discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the rental or sale of a dwelling because of religion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); or
(c) coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with a person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, a right granted by the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617. Approval of Subdivision Plat
(2) Plaintiff shall initiate renewed discussions between the UEP Trust representatives and Colorado City representatives as regards approval of a subdivision plat of Colorado City. Engineers for the Trust and for Colorado City shall be involved, and they (the engineers) shall identify any issues requiring resolution – and steps to be taken to resolve them – for purposes of creating a final, recordable subdivision plat of Colorado City.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 32 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 33 of 54
(a) Within 30 days of the entry of this injunction, the parties shall report to the court as regards the issues to be resolved and the steps to be taken to resolve them.
(b) Within 60 days of the entry of this injunction, the parties shall report to the court as regards the resolution of issues and steps taken to create a final subdivision plat. If there are disagreements that the parties are unable to resolve, plaintiff and defendant shall present the same to the court for resolution.
(c) Once any outstanding issues have been resolved, the UEP engineer shall produce a final subdivision plat of Colorado City. The plat will be executed on behalf of the UEP Trust, and Colorado City shall approve the subdivision plat and deliver it to the UEP Trust for recording.
(d) The UEP Trust and Colorado City shall bear their own engineering fees. The UEP Trust shall bear the cost of recording the subdivision plat. Adoption of Building Department Policies and Procedures
(3) Within 30 days of the entry of this injunction, the Defendant Cities shall develop and submit to the United States for its approval: objective, uniform, non-discriminatory policies and procedures to govern the operation of the Defendant Cities’ building department and the functions of the Defendant Cities’ building official(s) (“Building Department Policies and Procedures”) related to handling building permits and applications for associated licenses and certificates, including but not limited to building

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 33 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 34 of 54

permit application requirements, the plan review process, building inspections, bases for permit application denials and permit revocations, and the assessment of fees.
(4) The Building Department Policies and Procedures shall specifically include the following:
(a) a provision stating that the Defendant Cities may not take any action with respect to any building permit for arbitrary reasons, or on the basis of religion or religious affiliation;
(b) a provision stating that the Defendant Cities shall not issue a building permit unless the applicant has provided the Defendant Cities with an application form that includes the signature of the property owner;
(c) a building permit application form that includes lines for the name, contact information, and signature of the property owner or the owner’s agent or representative;
(d) a provision stating that if the Defendant Cities determine that any building permit should be declared void or expired, the Defendant Cities must provide at least 14 days’ advance, written notice to the property owner and permit applicant of the permit expiration or cancellation. The notice must state the basis for the Defendant Cities’ decision that the permit is void or expired; and
(e) a procedure that allows permit holders or permit applicants to file an appeal of an adverse decision by the Defendant Cities with respect to a permit (e.g., a decision to deny, withdraw, void, or cancel a permit).

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 34 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 35 of 54

(5) Within 30 days of the United States’ approval of the Building Department Policies and Procedures, the Defendant Cities shall implement the Building Department Policies and Procedures and make them available upon request in any office where municipal business is conducted or where the Defendant Cities’ employees or officials regularly interact with members of the public.
(6) Upon the United States’ approval of Building Department Policies and Procedures, no building permit shall be issued on any application that does not include the signature of the property owner or the owner’s agent or representative.
(7) The Building Department Policies and Procedures may be modified only if written notice is given to counsel for the United States and to the Monitor (see paragraph 29 below) 30 days before the proposed modifications are to take effect and the United States and the Monitor make no objection thereto. The notice referenced in this paragraph must specify the modification requested and any documentation supporting the modification.
(8) The Building Department Policies and Procedures may not be enforced in a manner that discriminates based upon religion.
Amendments to Water Services Regulations (9) Within 30 days of the entry of this injunction, the Defendant Cities shall repeal outdated water service access regulations based on “new water” requirements and, within 60 days of the entry of this injunction, shall develop and submit to the United States for its approval proposed amendments to their Water Services Regulations to specify that, in order to transfer an existing water connection from the name of an existing customer to the name of a new customer where the existing customer has not applied to transfer service to the new customer’s name, the new customer need only: (a) attest,

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 35 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 36 of 54

under penalty of perjury, by signing and submitting the application for utility services, that the new customer owns the property for which he/she is seeking a utility connection or has the owner’s permission to occupy or obtain utility services at the property, and (b) show proof of ownership of the property, permission to occupy, or obtain utility services at the property. Such documentation may take the form of a deed or an occupancy agreement, rental agreement, lease, or other document showing permission by the owner to occupy or seek utility services.
(10) Under the revised Water Services Regulations, in order to transfer service for water or any other utility service, the Defendant Cities shall not require new customers to: obtain the permission of the existing customer by using the Utility Services Disconnect or Termination Application form or by any other means; provide proof that the new customer has extinguished all other potential occupants’ rights to the property at issue; or wait any period of time for utility service to be transferred so that the existing customer can be contacted if the new customer provides the attestation and proof of ownership or the right to occupy or obtain utility services described in the preceding paragraph.
(11) Within 30 days of the United States’ approval of the revised Water Services Regulations, the Defendant Cities shall implement the revised Water Services Regulations and make them available upon request in any office where municipal business is conducted or where the Defendant Cities’ employees or officials regularly interact with members of the public.
(12) The Water Services Regulations may be modified only if written notice is given to counsel for the United States and to the Monitor 30 days before the proposed modifications are to take effect and the United States and the Monitor make no objection

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 36 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 37 of 54
thereto. The notice referenced in this paragraph must specify the modification requested and any documentation supporting the modification.
(13) The Water Services Regulations may not be enforced in a manner that discriminates based upon religion.
Culinary Water Impact Fee (14) The court shall appoint, using the procedures set forth below, a licensed engineer or engineering firm (“Engineer”) to perform a review of the Defendant Cities’ culinary water impact fee. (15) The parties shall confer regarding the selection of the Engineer and provide the court with an agreed-upon selection within 60 days of the entry of this injunction. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on an Engineer within 60 days of the entry of this injunction, the parties shall, within 70 days of the entry of this injunction, each submit the name(s) of a potential Engineer(s) to the court, and the court shall select one or more persons or entities to serve as the Engineer from among the candidates proposed by the parties. (16) Within 90 days of the court’s appointment of the Engineer, the Engineer shall perform a review of the Culinary Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan & Impact Fee Analysis for the Defendant Cities conducted by Sunrise Engineering and, after consultation with representatives of the UEP Trust, including the Trust’s retained Engineer, the Defendant Cities, and any other person or entity the Engineer deems necessary, provide the parties and the court with an updated Culinary Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Analysis (“Updated Impact Fee Report”).

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 37 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 38 of 54

(17) Should the Updated Impact Fee Report recommend a maximum eligible impact fee that is lower than the Defendant Cities’ current impact fee, the Defendant Cities shall revise their existing impact fee accordingly within 35 days.
(18) The Engineer shall have timely, full, and direct access to any of the Defendant Cities’ officials or employees, documents, data, or any other information in the Defendant Cities’ possession, custody, or control that the Engineer deems necessary to produce the Updated Impact Fee Report.
(19) The Defendant Cities shall bear the cost of and cooperate freely and fully with all reasonable activities and requests of the Engineer.
(20) The Engineer shall not be considered an employee or represented party of the Defendant Cities for purposes of Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2.
(21) Except as indicated in paragraph 17, above, the amount of any impact fee for culinary water connections may only be modified if written notice is given to counsel for the United States and the Monitor 30 days before the proposed modification is to take effect and the United States and the Monitor make no objection thereto. The notice referenced in this paragraph must specify the new impact fee amount and must include any reports or analyses supporting the modification. The Culinary Water Impact Fee Plan shall be reviewed by a licensed engineer or engineering firm at no less than five-year intervals.
Websites and Public Notice (22) Within 90 days of the entry of this injunction, the Defendant Cities shall develop publicly available internet websites for each municipality, if such websites do not already exist. The Defendant Cities shall maintain these websites with the information specified below for the duration of this injunction.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 38 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 39 of 54

(23) The Defendant Cities shall prominently post on the “home page” for each website the following:
(a) The identity and contact information for every elected or appointed city official, as well as the head of each city department.
(b) Notice of all upcoming city council meetings and utility board meetings. Notice of city council meetings shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to any city council meeting and must include notice of all topics to be addressed at the meeting and copies of any proposed ordinances, policies, or motions that may be the subject of a vote at the meeting.
(c) An internet link to mechanisms to apply via the internet or access any forms required by the Defendant Cities to apply for any municipal services, including but not limited to building permits, utility connections or transfers, subdivision applications, and public-records requests.
(d) An internet link to the current versions of all municipal ordinances and codes as well as all municipal regulations, procedures, and policies, including the CCMO policies and procedures manual and any revisions made pursuant to Section V.B. above, the Building Department Policies and Procedures, developed pursuant to Section V.C, paragraphs 3 through 8, above, and the Water Services Regulations, revised pursuant to Section V.C, paragraphs 9 through 13, above. All documents linked pursuant to this subparagraph shall be updated within 30 business days of any adoption, amendment, or

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 39 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 40 of 54

repeal. The Defendant Cities shall maintain paper and electronic
copies of all versions of the documents described in this paragraph in
effect for the duration of this injunction.
(e) The following language, which will include an internet link to this
injunction:
“The United States District Court for the District of Arizona has held that the City of Hildale and the Town of Colorado City engaged in illegal discrimination on the basis of religion and have violated the federal Fair Housing Act, the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 14141. The District Court has ordered the City of Hildale and the Town of Colorado City to make certain changes to the operations of the local government to ensure the City and Town are complying with federal law. You may view and print a copy of that injunction here [linking to this order].”
Mandatory Education & Training
(24) Within 90 days of the entry of this injunction, and annually thereafter for
the duration of this injunction, the Defendant Cities shall provide in-person training on
the requirements of this injunction, the policies, procedures, and regulations, and
ordinances adopted or amended pursuant to Section V.C of this injunction, the
requirements of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the requirements of the Fair Housing
Act to the following individuals: (1) all city council members; (2) all elected officials,
including the mayors of the Defendant Cities; (3) all members of the Utility Board; (4) the
city/town managers; (5) all employees or officials who have duties related to the planning,
zoning, permitting, construction, or occupancy of residential housing; and (6) all
employees or officials responsible for approving, initiating, or stopping the provision of
water service, sewer service, waste-disposal service, or other similar, municipal services

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 40 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 41 of 54
to real property. In addition to addressing the requirements identified above, the training shall specifically address the appropriate separation between municipal government, and the functions of municipal government and the FLDS Church, or any other religious entity.
(25) The training shall be conducted by a qualified third person or organization other than the Defendant Cities’ counsel, and the qualified person or organization must be approved in advance by the United States. The training shall be video-recorded and will be of at least 3 hours’ duration. The Defendant Cities shall bear all costs associated with the training.
(26) Within 60 days of the entry of this injunction, the Defendant Cities shall supply the name of the person(s) or organization(s) proposed to provide training pursuant to this section to counsel for the United States, together with copies of the professional qualifications of such person(s) or organization(s) and copies of all materials to be used in the training.
(27) Within 30 days of when an official or employee is hired in a position covered by paragraph 24 above, or undertakes new duties that would require him/her to attend training under the terms of this injunction, the Defendant Cities shall require such person to watch the training video and distribute to each such person copies of all written materials from the most recent training session.
(28) All persons required to attend training under the terms of this injunction shall verify, under penalty of perjury, that they attended each required training session. Verification of attendance shall be submitted to the United States, for the initial training, and to the Monitor, for all trainings thereafter.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 41 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 42 of 54

Monitor (29) The court shall appoint, using the procedures set forth below, one or more monitors (“Monitor”) who shall have the authorities and responsibilities set forth below. (30) The parties shall confer regarding the selection of the Monitor and provide the court with an agreed-upon Monitor within 90 days of the entry of this injunction. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on a Monitor within 90 days of the entry of this injunction. the parties shall, within 100 days of the entry of this injunction, each submit the name(s) of potential Monitor(s) to the court, and the court shall select one or more persons or entities to serve as the Monitor from among the candidates proposed by the parties. (31) The Monitor shall have the responsibility of reviewing municipal decisions by the Defendant Cities implicating the Fair Housing Act and overseeing implementation of all aspects and terms of this injunction. As part of his/her monitoring role, the Monitor shall: (a) Conduct regular site visits, during which the Monitor shall interview
city officials, review documents, and attend meetings. The Monitor may also request interviews or meetings with, or request documents from, any other person or entity the Monitor deems relevant to conducting his/her other responsibilities. Statements made by Hildale and Colorado City officials to the Monitor shall be subject to penalties for perjury. (b) Review the Defendant Cities’ handling of all applications or requests related to utilities (both new utility connections and utility transfers), building permits and associated licenses and certificates, subdivision,

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 42 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 43 of 54

zoning amendments and variances, and applications for exceptions to or relief from any municipal land-use decisions, rules, or ordinances. In the event that any of the above-described applications or requests are denied or not decided within 30 days, the Defendant Cities must provide to the applicant(s) and to the Monitor the reason(s) for any such situations in writing. (c) Review all modifications (including enactments, adoptions, amendments, or repeals) by the Defendant Cities, or any component department or board, to any ordinances, regulations, procedures, or policies affecting housing or related to the provision of municipal services related to housing, including but not limited to those related to zoning, planning, subdivision, building permits, licenses, residential rental taxes, and utility service connections (e.g., culinary water service, irrigation water service, sewer service, and waste disposal). (d) Review all complaints by any resident or other person or entity regarding any municipal actions considered or taken by the Defendant Cities potentially affecting rights associated with housing, including associated municipal services and policing services related to housing, and investigate such complaints as the Monitor deems appropriate. (e) Review any changes proposed by the Defendant Cities to the Building Department Policies and Procedures, the Water Services Regulations, or the culinary water impact fee and provide a statement

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 43 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 44 of 54

of objection or no-objection to the Defendant Cities and the United States within 30 days of receiving notice of the proposed changes. (f) Issue reports to the parties and the court containing an analysis of the Defendant Cities’ progress towards compliance with the terms of this injunction, as described in Section V.C, paragraphs 39 through 40, below. (32) The Monitor shall not be considered an employee or represented party of the Defendant Cities for purposes of Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, and counsel for the parties are not restricted in any way from communicating directly and ex parte with the Monitor; but any such communication(s) shall be by hard copy or permanently stored electronic form. (33) The services, operations and facilities to be monitored include all the Defendant Cities’ services, operations, and facilities provided in connection with a dwelling or associated with, affecting, or relating to housing or the ability to own or occupy a dwelling, including but not limited to culinary water (including service, supply, connections, fees, and development), building permits, subdivision approval, land use, planning and zoning, and the provision of police services affecting rights under the Fair Housing Act, irrespective of how the Defendant Cities have or shall have organized, structured, incorporated, or titled such services, operations, or facilities. (34) The Monitor’s obligations and authority shall include monitoring for compliance with this injunction by the Defendant Cities’ councils, commissions, boards, committees, departments, elected and non-elected and appointed and non-appointed officials, officers, council or board members, personnel, employees, agents, servants, delegates, designees, bailees, business partners, and joint venturers.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 44 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 45 of 54

(35) The Monitor’s ongoing responsibility and authority under this injunction to conduct monitoring shall not be impacted by any modification by the Defendant Cities of who provides or manages any relevant services, operations, or facilities, or how any such services, operations, or facilities are provided or managed.
(36) The Monitor shall have timely, full, and direct access to any relevant individuals, documents, meetings, reviews, data, or trainings that are in the possession, custody, or control of the Cities and are necessary to evaluate compliance with this injunction.
(37) The Defendant Cities shall bear the cost of and cooperate freely and fully with all reasonable monitoring activities and requests of the Monitor. Such cooperation shall include, but is not limited to:
(a) Providing the Monitor with advance, timely notice of all regular and emergency public meetings of Defendant Cities’ councils, boards, commissions, committees and departments, sufficient to allow the Monitor adequate time to make arrangements to attend such meetings.
(b) Allowing the Monitor full access to all meetings described in the preceding paragraph.
(c) Providing the Monitor advance, timely notice of every instance in which a council, board, or other arm or department of the Defendant Cities intends to meet in executive session, with a description of the purposes for the executive session. The Monitor shall be empowered to request attendance at all such executive sessions and, in the event attendance is denied, the Defendant Cities shall maintain an audio

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 45 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 46 of 54

recording of the executive session and the Monitor shall have the right to petition this court for a further order, upon a showing of good cause to believe that the executive session involves matters relevant to compliance with the terms of this injunction, the United States Constitution, or the Fair Housing Act, requiring the Defendant Cities to allow the Monitor to attend the relevant executive session(s) or, if the executive session has taken place, to have a copy of the recording of the executive session and any documents discussed at the executive session. In the event a Monitor attends an executive session or receives access to a recording of an executive session as provided in this injunction, the Monitor shall comply with the laws of the applicable state governing confidentiality of legitimate executive session information. The Monitor’s presence at any executive session, or review of any recording of any executive session, shall not waive any attorney-client privilege between the Defendant Cities and their attorneys in the event their attorneys provided legal advice or consultation during any such executive session. (d) Allowing and facilitating the Monitor’s full access to all individuals, documents, meetings, reviews, data, and trainings as described in the preceding paragraphs; and (e) Providing and facilitating the Monitor’s free, open, and immediate access to all documents, records, files, and information of the Defendant Cities, including without limitation: (1) all paper,

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 46 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 47 of 54
electronic, photographic, video and audio data, information, documents, files, or records within the custody or control of the Defendant Cities or their agents; (2) all correspondence or communications (including without limitation all electronic mail, instant messaging, radio, text or other forms of communication) to, from or among any of the Defendant Cities’ councils, boards, commissions, departments, committees, elected and non-elected and appointed and non-appointed officials, officers, council members, board members, personnel, employees, contractors, agents, servants, delegates, designees, bailees, business partners, joint venturers, vendors, financers and suppliers; and (3) any and all planning, policy, reporting, decision-making, or investigative records or materials of the Defendant Cities. This section does not authorize the Monitor to obtain any documents or correspondence covered by the attorney-client privilege between the Defendant Cities and their attorneys. If the Monitor believes that it is entitled to attorney-client privileged documents or correspondence, it shall file a request with the court. The Defendant Cities may file a response to this request within 14 days, after which the court will issue any necessary ruling. If the court rules that the Monitor is entitled to attorney-client privileged documents or correspondence, the Monitor shall not disclose these documents or correspondence to the United States or any third party absent prior approval from the court.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 47 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 48 of 54
(38) Except as required or authorized by the terms of this injunction or the parties acting together, the Monitor shall not make any public or press statements (at a conference or otherwise) or issue findings with regard to any act or omission of the Defendant Cities or their agents, representatives or employees, or disclose information provided to the Monitor pursuant to this injunction. Absent a court order, the Monitor shall not testify in any other civil litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the Defendant Cities or any of their agents, representatives, or employees related to this injunction, nor testify in any other civil litigation or proceeding regarding any matter or subject that he or she may have learned as a result of his or her performance under this injunction, nor serve as a non-testifying expert in any other civil litigation or proceeding regarding any matter or subject that he or she may have learned as a result of his or her performance under this injunction. Unless such conflict is waived by all parties, the Monitor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor’s responsibilities under this injunction, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant’s or claimant’s attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the Defendant Cities or their departments, officers, agents, or employees. The Monitor is not a state/county or local agency or an agent thereof, and accordingly the records maintained by the Monitor shall not be deemed public records subject to public inspection. Neither the Monitor nor any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this injunction shall be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out of the Monitor’s performance pursuant to this injunction. This provision does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 48 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 49 of 54

performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this injunction. The Monitor shall be considered an agent of the court.
(39) The Monitor shall provide to the parties a written report every 90 days for the first 2 years following the appointment of the Monitor. After the first 2 years, the Monitor shall, in his or her discretion and with the approval of the United States, decrease the frequency of reporting to every 6 months. The Monitor will report to the court upon the court’s request.
(40) The reports to the parties described in the previous paragraph shall set forth the complete efforts and findings of the Monitor over the reporting period regarding compliance by the Defendant Cities with the terms of the injunction. The reports will, at a minimum: (1) detail the Monitor’s activities as described in Paragraph 31, above, and (2) identify any obstacles to the work of the Monitor and any resistance on the part of city officials to the implementation of this injunction or the work of the Monitor.
(41) Should the Monitor determine that any action or inaction by the Defendant Cities, including but not limited to actions taken in connection with any applications or requests regarding any utility services, building permits, zoning amendments or variances, or subdivision, or any modification to any ordinance, regulation, policy, or procedure, constitutes evidence of a violation of the terms of this injunction, or evidence of discrimination because of religion, or a violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Monitor shall report to the United States and the Defendant Cities in writing and demand immediate action by the Defendant Cities to correct such issues.
(a) The Monitor shall promptly report to the parties any alleged non-compliance with the terms of this injunction. The Defendant Cities shall, within 15 days of the date of the Monitor’s report (or

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 49 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 50 of 54
such greater time as the Monitor may recommend) provide the United States and the Monitor with a written, comprehensive response to the Monitor’s report. (b) The Defendant Cities will make available for interviews, to be conducted by the United States, any employees or agents of the Defendant Cities whom the United States wishes to interview in connection with the Monitor’s report.
VI. RECORDS AND RIGHTS TO ACCESS (1) The Defendant Cities shall be responsible for maintaining and preserving, or supervising the maintenance and preservation, of all records, including but not limited to electronic records and files, created in association with complying with this injunction. (2) Upon request of the Monitor, the parties and their attorneys shall have full and direct access to all staff, employees, facilities, documents, records, files, and data related to this injunction. The United States shall also be permitted to accompany the Monitor on any inspections or tours. Upon reasonable notice to counsel for the Defendant Cities, representatives of the United States or the Monitor shall be permitted to inspect and copy all records associated with compliance with this injunction at any and all reasonable times or, upon request by the United States, the Defendant Cities shall provide copies of such documents. This right of access shall apply to all aspects of this injunction. (3) The United States will work with the Defendant Cities and their attorneys to access involved personnel, documents, and facilities in a reasonable manner that is

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 50 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 51 of 54

consistent with the United States’ right to seek enforcement of this injunction and minimizes interruptions to daily operations.
(4) Any Monitor appointed in this case will, along with the United States, maintain all confidential or non-public information in a confidential manner.
VII. JURISDICTION, DURATION, ETC. (1) This court has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 3614. The court shall retain jurisdiction over this case to enforce the terms of this judgment and injunction. (2) The injunctive relief granted by this judgment and decree shall be in effect immediately upon entry. Except as expressly provided otherwise, the injunctive relief (Section V(B) and V(C)) shall remain in effect for ten years or until otherwise ordered by the court. (3) Plaintiff may move the court to extend the duration of the injunction in the event of noncompliance, whether intentional or not, with any of its terms, or if it believes the interests of justice so require. (4) Modification of this injunction, Sections V(B) and V(C), may be sought as follows: (a) Any time limits for performance imposed by this injunction may be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties and notice to the court. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement as to the extension of a time limit, a party may move, on shortened time, filed before the expiration of the time limit in question, for an order of the court, granting an extension of time. Extensions of time may be

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 51 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 52 of 54

granted only for good cause shown. After-the-fact motions for extensions of time will not be approved except by mutual written agreement of the parties. (b) Provisions of this injunction other than time limits may be modified by motion to and order of the court. (5) The parties shall endeavor in good faith to resolve informally any differences regarding interpretation of and compliance with this injunction prior to bringing such matters to the court for resolution. However, in the event the United States contends that there has been a failure by the Town of Colorado City or the City of Hildale, whether willful or otherwise, to perform in a timely manner any act required by this injunction or otherwise to act in conformance with any provision hereof, the United States may move this court to impose any remedy authorized by law or equity, including, but not limited to, an order requiring performance of such act or deeming such act to have been performed, and an award of any damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees which may have been occasioned by the violation or failure to perform. (6) The parties agree that, as of the date of entry of this injunction, 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 in this injunction, the party is no longer required to maintain such a litigation hold. (7) The preceding paragraph does not relieve the Defendant Cities of any record-keeping responsibilities imposed by the terms of this injunction. (8) The United States shall submit its petition for costs within 90 days of the entry of this injunction. All parties shall be responsible for their own attorney fees.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 52 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 53 of 54

(9) Communications in furtherance of the implementation, compliance, or enforcement of remedies shall be directed as follows:

to plaintiff:

Sean Richard Keveney United States Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20053

Phone: Fax: E-mail:

202-514-4838 202-514-1116 sean.r.keveney@usdoj.gov

to Colorado City: Jeffrey C. Matura Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Ste. 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Phone: Fax: E-mail:

602-792-5721 602-792-5710 jmatura@gbmlawpc.com

<and>

Town Manager Town of Colorado City, Arizona P.O. Box 70 Colorado City, Arizona 86021

Phone: Fax: E-mail:

928-875-2646 928-875-2778 manager@tocc.us

to Hildale City: R. Blake Hamilton Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C. 111 South Main Street, Ste. 2400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Phone: Fax: E-mail:

801-297-1419 801-415-3500 bhamilton@djplaw.com

<and>

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 53 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1053 Filed 04/18/17 Page 54 of 54

Mayor – Hildale City, Utah 320 East Newel Avenue P.O. Box 840490 Hildale, Utah 84784

Phone: Fax: E-Mail:

435-874-2323 435-874-2603 mayor@hildalecity.com

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 18th day of April, 2017.

/s/ H. Russel Holland United States District Judge

JUDGMENT AND DECREE GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- 54 -

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1089 Filed 08/01/17 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs.

)

)

TOWN OF COLORADO CITY, ARIZONA, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

No. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division)

O R D E R Completion of Required Training Section V.C.(24)-(28) of the court’s Judgment and Decree granting injunctive relief,1 makes provision for mandatory education and training. By stipulation of July 17, 2017,2 the parties have reached agreement with respect to certain modifications of the court’s mandatory education and training requirements. The parties have selected the Southwest Fair Housing Council as the entity that will provide training on the Fair Housing Act. In accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the following amendments to the court’s Judgment and Decree are adopted: a. Fair Housing Act Training. i. Training on the Fair Housing Act will be completed by August 16, 2017.

1Docket No. 1053. 2Docket No. 1079.

Order – Completion of Required Training

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1089 Filed 08/01/17 Page 2 of 3
ii. Defendant Cities will provide a copy of the proposed trainer’s qualifications to the United States by July 17, 2017.
iii. Defendant Cities will provide a copy of training materials tailored to the training needs of this case, including discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act based on religion and the implications for municipal services, including building, water, and policing, by July 24, 2017.
iv. The training will last for at least one hour, or longer at the discretion of the trainer.
The parties have been unable to locate and identify qualified, available individuals
to conduct other required training. The court being satisfied that the parties have
otherwise made good progress in complying with the court’s Judgment and Decree, and
being satisfied that the parties are working together in good faith to complete training
requirements, the following additional amendments to the court’s Judgment and Decree,
as stipulated by the parties, are approved:
b. Constitutional Training.
i. Training on the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments will be completed by September 15, 2017.
ii. Defendant Cities will provide a copy of the proposed trainer’s qualifications to the United States by August 1, 2017.
iii. Defendant Cities will provide a copy of training materials, tailored to the requirements of this case, by August 31, 2017.
iv. The training will last for at least one hour, or longer at the discretion of the trainer.
c. Policies and Procedures Training.
i. Training on new policies and procedures, regulations, and ordinances adopted or amended due to the Judgment and Decree shall occur within 30 days after the last policy, procedure, regulation, or ordinance is adopted or amended.

Order – Completion of Required Training

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1089 Filed 08/01/17 Page 3 of 3
ii. Defendant Cities will provide a copy of the proposed training materials within 10 days after the adoption or amendment of the last policy, procedure, regulation, or ordinance.
iii. The training will last for at least one hour, or longer at the discretion of the trainer.
iv. Due to their familiarity with the new policies, procedures, regulations, and ordinances, Jeffrey Matura and Blake Hamilton will conduct the initial training in 2017.
v. For all future training, Defendant Cities will request that the same person who conducts the Fair Housing Training review the new policies, procedures, regulations, and ordinances and conduct the training going forward.
Except as specifically provided above, all other terms of the Judgment and Decree with respect to mandatory education and training will apply.
On or before October 13, 2017, the parties shall provide the court with an updated status report with respect to their progress in carrying out the mandatory education and training requirements of the court’s Judgment and Decree.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 1st day of August, 2017.
/s/ H. Russel Holland United States District Judge

Order – Completion of Required Training

- 3 -

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 1 of 28
rJ-F1L.EO _RECEIVED

February 1, 2018 ON-ta..gra?J-- f(35r- H-e.-#- oD
To: United States District Court for the District of Arizona
From: Roger Carter, Court Monitor

FEB 1 2 2018 ~

9U?:AA U S OliTRtCT 00Utr

IJISmiCi OF ~Nit\

~y

-

D~

Re: February 2018 Monitoring Report for the cities of Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah.

This report is submitted in compliance with § V.C. (39) of the Judgement and Decree Granting Injunctive Relief ("Order"), requiring a written report every 90 days on injunction compliance by the Defendant Cities and the activities of the Court Monitor.

This report will cover the period from November 1, 2017, to January 31, 2018, and include a current status of compliance on all the Order requirements, identify any obstacles to the work of the Monitor, and provide general observations (§ V.C. (40)).

Fair Housing Injunction Requirements Approval of the Subdivision Plat

The Subdivision Plat for Colorado City was recorded in Mohave County, September 26, 2017. Requirements of this Order are complete. The Cities are currently working on establishing their, first-ever, zoning ordinances.

Adoption of Building Department Policies and Procedures

A. The Building Department Policies and Procedures were approved by the United States and adopted by Colorado City, Arizona on September 11, 2017. They were adopted by Hildale, Utah on September 12, 2017. This requirement is complete.
B. The Building Department application was revised, as per the Order, and is currently in use. This requirement is complete.

C. Record audits are conducted by the Monitor to determine compliance with policies and the Order and no incident of non-compliance was found during this reporting period.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 2 of 28
2
D. An electronic system of processing was established with the Cities that allow the Monitor to oversee the application process and to collect data on the responsiveness of the department. An example of the summary page of this collection system is provided 1•
E. No additional changes to policies or procedures have occurred during this reporting period.
Water Service Regulations A. The Building Department Policies and Procedures were approved by the United States and adopted by Colorado City, Arizona on September 11, 2017. They were adopted by Hildale, Utah on September 12, 2017. This requirement is complete. B. New Utility Service Applications were developed, as per the requirements of the Order, and are currently being used. This requirement is complete. C. Record audits are conducted by the Monitor to determine compliance with policies and the Order and no incident of non-compliance was found during this reporting period. D. Similar to the Building Department application process, an electronic utility application process was established which allows the Monitor to oversee compliance, responsiveness and to collect data. An example of the summary page of this collection system is provided2.
Culinary Water Impact Fee As per the Order, a new Culinary Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan & Impact Fee
Analysis was completed by Alpha Engineering on January 25, 2018, and submitted to all Parties.3 This analysis recommends a new impact fee, which will need to be adopted by the Cities within 35 days. This requirement is complete except for the adoption of the Culinary Water Impact Fee. Website
1 Exhibit A 2 Exhibit B 3 Exhibit C

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 3 of 28
3
A. The Cities have posted all of the contact information for the elected and appointed officials as well as the Department Heads to their website. This requirement is complete.
B. 24-hour notice of all upcoming meetings, as well as the minutes from previous meetings, have been posted. There have, on occasion, been some conflicting meeting dates posted to the website for Hildale, Utah meetings and they have been cautioned to take more care in this area.
C. All municipal codes, department policies and regulations, Building Department policies and regulations, water connection requirements and regulations, subdivision applications and information, Marshal's Office policies, public records requests, and contact information of the Monitor have all been posted to the Cities websites. This requirement is complete.
Mandatory Education and Training The Order required training for all employees outlined in§ V.C. (24) in the U.S.
Constitution, Fair Housing, and the Orders of the Injunction. A. Constitutional Training occurred on September 25, 2017. The recording of this training is to be provided to all new employees within 30-days of hire. The Monitor was provided an updated list of new employees who have completed this training and those who have yet to be trained. In several instances, the training was not completed within the required 30-day period. Furthermore, there were some missing dates on when the videos were watched by the employees. The Monitor has since created a new Training Affidavit sheet which will be completed on each employee4. B. Fair Housing Training occurred on September 5, 2017. The recording of this training is to be provided to all new employees within 30-days of hire. The Monitor was provided an updated list of new employees who have completed this training an.d those who have
4 Exhibit D

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 4 of 28
4
yet to be trained. In several instances, the training was not completed within the required 30-day period. Furthermore, there were some missing dates on when the videos were watched by the employees. The Monitor has since created a new Training Affidavit sheet which will be completed QY each employee. C. Injunction Training has not occurred to-date. The Cities are currently noncompliant with this requirement. All parties have agreed to complete the training as soon as possible. Marshal's Office The Monitor is to ensure that there are no violations of Fair Housing requirements by employees of the Marshal's Office during their interactions with the public. A. A requirement was placed upon the Marshal's Office to report to the Monitor, within 24 hours, any calls for service that involves housing, land-use, utility, or building issues. Although complied with, there have been incidents within this reporting period when this has not been reported within the 24-hour timetable. B. To verify that the Monitor is receiving all the calls for service, the Marshal's Office is required to turn in a monthly Computer Aided Dispatch ("CAD") report, from Dispatch. This report will then be compared to the reporting of the officers. This has been a timeconsuming and challenging request. The Monitor has been working with the Police Consultant to receive this report. The first report was recently provided to the Monitor. Often, In reviewing the specific calls of service, there is a lack of detailed information in their Incident Report. The Monitor would request that, with the assistance of the Police Consultant, the CAD report be regularly provided, with no missing incident numbers, and more detailed reporting. C. The Monitor has worked closely with both the Police Consultant and Mentor and
provides the following summary as provided by them.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 5 of 28
5
a. Police Consultant-A draft of the policy manual was completed in early December and sent to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for their review. The DOJ indicates that they hope to have these policies reviewed and completed by the end of June 2018. Implementation of these policies will occur as they are approved by the DOJ. Three new officers were hired and are currently in training. They are scheduled to graduate in April 2018. Concern has been raised by the Consultant about the ability of the Marshal's Office to make the necessary adjustments, as outlined in the Order, with the existing staff. The Consultant has expended a great deal of energy in assistance with marginal signs of improvement. Currently, one officer remains charged through the Mohave County Attorney's office, one officer has resigned and will be leaving in two weeks, and another has indicated that he will be resigning as soon as the recruits are in place. Recently the Consultant was asked not to be involved in the CAD or incident reports and to focus on those items that specifically pertain to the Order.
b. Mentor-The Mentor indicates that the Chief of the Marshal's Office has never reached out to him for assistance. During their visits, the Chief often complains about the injustice of the Order and how it has affected him and his officers. This continues to create a challenging environment within the department. When the Mentor leaves messages for the Chief, they are not returned promptly. The Monitor has recently met with the Chief to express these concerns, and the Chief has committed to doing better.
Monitor During this reporting period, the Monitor: A. The Monitor attended city and town council meetings, planning commission meetings, utility board meetings and executive sessions. B. Met with staff and elected officials.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 6 of 28
6
C. Reviewed modifications to codes or ordinances that pertain to Fair Housing, including early discussions with staff on the developing zoning ordinances.
D. Followed up on the following complaints by residents: a. A complaint was filed by an insurance agency complaining that their request for home fire inspections has been ignored. The inability to obtain a fire inspection has resulted in a delay in mortgage approvals. The Monitor contacted the City and communication has initiated between them and the insurance agency. Fire inspections are currently happening. b. A complaint was filed by a business owner complaining that the City was not responding or providing information on what he needed to apply for an alcohol license. This issue has now come before the new Hildale, Utah Town Council and is in the process of being resolved. Obstacles
Although the work with the Cities has been overall positive, this most recent reporting period has shown a little more effort being required for the Cities to be proactive in their efforts of reporting and responding. Recently, the Monitor provided a memo5 to the Cities outlining their reporting requirements and reminding them of their responsibility to proactively comply and report. There have been several examples of the Cities not monitoring their deadlines or needing the Monitor to remind them, for example:
A. Fire Inspections -Colorado City initially failed to follow up with the Monitor on addressing the fire inspection complaint.
B. Providing of Documents -A complaint was submitted to the Monitor that the previous Hildale Town Council was holding a special meeting to handle a land sale which could be discriminatory. The Monitor requested documents about this, but no response was
5 Exhibit E

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 7 of 28
7
received. Ultimately, the decision was tabled until the new Town Council could hear the issue. C. Training -The Monitor needed to request timely training and information on two separate occasions. The Cities are currently out of compliance on this issue. These examples are provided to note that as specific Order requirements are accomplished, the work of the Monitor will be to ensure that there is sustained and proactive commitment to the intent of the Order. As was pointed out in my previous report, there is a need for the Cities to make the elements of the Order a systemic part of their organization and not just a required hoop to jump through as part of a court mandate.
Summary As a summary of this report, the following items continued to be non-compliant. Non-compliant issues
A. New Impact Fee needs to be adopted by the Cities within 35 days. B. Greater care in posting of meeting times and dates to ensure that there is no public
confusion. C. Training has not been occurring within 30-days of hire. D. The training on the Injunction has not occurred to date. E. CAD accuracy and timely reporting by officers on housing or land-use calls. F. More timely follow up with citizen and Monitor requests. Summary
This last reporting period has been significant in the history of these two communities. In November, a new Town Council in Hildale, Utah was elected. This Town Council consisted of the first-ever female mayor and three new councilmembers. Each of these newly-elected officials ran on a platform of making change, transparency, equal-treatment, and working towards a more inclusive community. Having been in office for a month, these officials have already made changes in the legal direction of the community, adopted requirements for council

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 8 of 28
8
members to attend council meeting physically, and altered the duties and direction of staff. These changes have not been without consequences. As of this report, the Town Manager of Hildale has submitted his resignation, the Treasure has vacated his position, and all utility employees have given their notice of departure. This new Town Council will need to replace each of these employees.
Additionally, there has never been a time in which the two communities leadership has been more diverse. This has created some initial anxiety, with both Cities, on what the future holds. Will the Cities be able to function together in the future? What impact will the change in Hildale have upon Colorado City in the next year? Will this change help in integrating the diversity of the community or will the pendulum simply swing from one segment of the population to another? These are questions that are currently at the doorstep of this area.
It is important, as these communities navigate through this period, that the Court Monitor ensure that the basic rights and principles of fair treatment, as outlined in the Court Order and the Constitution, are incorporated in any new governance practices and that all parties, regardless of their belief and position of power, are treated equally.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 9 of 28 9

Communication This report was provided electronically and in hard copy to:

Honorable Judge H. Russel Holland 401 West Washington Street, Ste 130, SPC 1 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118

To plaintiff: To Colorado City: To Hildale City:

Sean Richard Keveney United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Washington, DC 20053
Jeffrey c. Matura
Graif Barrett & Matura P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Ste. 500 Phoenix, AZ 85004
Town Manager Colorado City PO Box 70 Colorado City, AZ 86021
R. Blake Hamilton Durham, Jones & Pinegar, P.C. 111 South Main Street, Ste. 2400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Mayor- Hildale City, Utah 320 East Newel Ave PO Box 840490 Hildale, UT 84784

n Utah, this 1st day of February 1, 2018.

Roger Carter, Court Monitor

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 10 of 28
Exhibit A

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 11 of 28

e of Rec6rd Being Created

of l\!Jplication for Bt l\!Jplication Revie Pay01ent Fees Permitls~ued

~-··----------------~===J~~~~~==~~ =l--==~~====r===t -------

-------1-----~~=~==~1

j580 West Mohave Avenue

12/1/20171

1 12/1/2017!

12/1/2017!

1

0

'

==-1-==== i920NorthMapleStreet

11/21/20_!71

12/2/20171

,

1

11

--~j

f~~~,~:-;~~i~f:~~~_t_-~-.=iliiii~~~j___ ~~i~~~~~l:: ==~~~~:==L:~:~:~~=~~==l===-;~----------r==-~=1

--~

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 12 of 28
Exhibit B

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 13 of 28

SUM of Date
Requested Service Address 1025 N Canyon Street

~ ~
Type of Recored Being. Created Application to

Initial :Application Utility :Account" Account Creation

for Service " ,: " Created

~if

"

~

'

-

~

in Days
~

1/8/2018

265 SOUTH HOMESTEAD STREET

1/18/2018

360 S Colvin Street

1/17/2018

455 N Oak Street

1/8/2018

565 South Barlow Street C 11

1/11/2018

585 S Barlow Street D15

1/5/2018

PIONEER TRAILER COURT# 1

1/18/2018

PIONEER TRAILER COURT# 31

1/18/2018

PIONEER TRAILER COURT# 63

1/25/2018

1/26/2018

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 14 of 28
Exhibit C

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 15 of 28

ALPH I

43 South 100 East, Suite 100 T 435.628.6500

StGeorge, Utah 84770

F 435.628.6553

January 25,2018

Town of Colorado City Attn: Mayor Joseph Allred P.O. Box 70 Colorado City, AZ 86021
RE: Culinary Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan & Impact Fee Analysis Review for Hildale City and the Town of Colorado City

Dear Mr. Allred:
As directed by the City of Hildale and Town of Colorado City (the "Client") and the Depa1iment ofJustice, we have completed a review ofthe Culinary Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan & Impact Fee Analysis for Hi/dale City and the Town of Colorado City (the "IFFP") prepared by Sunrise Engineering dated December 2014. We have further met and discussed negotiable assets owned by the UEP Trust (the "UEP") to asce1iain potential impacts of the final impact fee. Throughout the process, we have coordinated with the involved pmiies, which included meetings as follows:

July 20, 2017 o Alpha Engineering, Sunrise Engineering, Town of Colorado City, City of Hildale
October 9, 2017 o Alpha Engineering and UEP Trust
October 26, 2017 o Alpha Engineering, Jeff Barlow, and Zachory Renstrom
Based on our review of the IFFP and discussions with the various pmiies, we have generated the following information:
Usage Data
The usage data used in the IFFP was reviewed. The original raw data was provided by the Client for the dates covered in the IFFP, \vhich included data from January 2011 to December 2013. The data was analyzed to determine differences between commercial and residential usage.
In our review of the data, it was observed that meter usage throughout the system was highly inconsistent and not typical for a municipal water system. There were several hundred meters that were sporadic in shov,ring any usage from month to month, and there were other meters that were not used at all during the three-year period of data. The total number of meters varied as follows (method lettering has been assigned to assist in identifying each scenario throughout this letter):
- Total number of connections [111ethod A] 0 1,689
- Total number of connections with a reading during the three-year period of data [Method B] 0 1,331
- Total number of connections with a reading from month-to-month [111ethod C] o This numbered varied from month-to-month. For comparative purposes, the average number of connections with a reading from month-to-month was 780.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 16 of 28

Impact Fee Analysis Review for Hildale City and the Town of Colorado City January 25, 2018

Based on the IFFP, the average overall usage per connection was 1,500 gpd. Using the raw data provided by the Client, we were able to duplicate this usage. It appears that the average usage was calculated based on the total number of meters that gave a reading in each month, which would be Method C. Other methods of calculating an average usage were explored as part of our review, including basing the number of total connections on the total number of connections across the system (Method A), and the total number of meters that gave a reading at any point during the three-year period (Method B).
Our review included all three methods and separated the commercial from the residential accounts as determined by the "Customer Type," which was a data field included in the raw data provided by the Client. Table 1 reflects the total average usage per connection by customer type and Figure 1 reflects the average usage by month by customer type.

Table 1 Average Usage per Connection

Customer Type Residential Commercial Overall

Method A 696 gpd 806 gpd 711 gpd

Method B 869 gpd 1,154 gpd 902 gpd

Method C 1,493 gpd 1,827 gpd 1,534 gpd

Figure 1 Monthly Average Usage by Customer Type Monthly Average Usage by User
90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0
]o

gb 50.0
ro
:";)' Bb 40.0
l1l
l

f--·················--1--·······---·-·····-·-i-········.t'·-·-·······i·c· c................ ·-+·--·-::A<''--------·-·h·.'-----··---+

20.0

0.0 ' - - - ' - - - - ' - - - - ' - - - - ' - - - - ' - - - - - - ' - - - - ' - - - - ' - - - - - ' - - - - - ' - - - - - ' - - - - - '

JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

-Commercial, Method A - Residential, Method A

-Commercial, Method 8 Residential, Method B

-commercial, Method c -· -.- Residential, Method c

ALPHA
ENG!NEE!':{!NG

Page 12

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 17 of 28
Impact Fee Analysis Review for Hildale City and the Town of Colorado City January 25, 2018
One of the goals ofthe IFFP is to establish how much water usage can be expected when adding additional users to the system. As mentioned above, there were several hundred meters that were sporadic in showing any usage from month to month, and there were other meters that were not used at all during the three-year period of data. In fmiher discussions with Justin Barlmv, Utility
Business Manager, it was determined that the data provided did necessarily include all"meters" or hard "connections," but rather "accounts." For example, a meter at one specific address
could have had two or more accounts for the same meter due to a previous occupant moving and having an unpaid bill with the same meter as a new account for a new occupant. Based on this information, we feel Method C used in the IFFP analysis is appropriate.
In reviewing the difference in usage between commercial and residential connections, the average usage for residential-only connections was decreased by only 2%-4% when the commercial connections were taken out of the calculations. While the average usage for commercial connections was a larger increase as shown in Table 1, the overall average usage difference is minimal because ofthe large ratio of residential to commercial connections.
It is further noted that the IFFP bases payment of impact fees on meter size. As meter size is calculated according to the water usage of the specific user, we do not see the need to separate commercial from residential. For example, a commercial development will often require more water, which requires a larger meter and larger impact fee. It would be at the Client's discretion to assess and regulate the appropriate sizing of meters. It is typical for water providers to require fixture counts and engineered calculations prior to development and the installation of meter connections.
'Vater Rights Purchase Analvsis
The IFFP provided for purchase ofwater rights from 2015 to 2024 at today' s cost of $3 92,477 and from 2025-2034 at today's cost of$376,300 (page 35 Table VII.A-1). A total of 165.8-acre feet of water was required according to the IFFP (page 12 Table III.C-1) for an assumed purchase price of approximately $4,637 per acre foot. It should be noted that additional water rights for the Arizona pmiion ofthe water delivery system did not require the purchase of additional \Vater rights according to the IFFP (page 13 paragraph E).
After the completion of the IFFP, the City of Hildale purchased 88.9-acre feet of water from the Utah Community Federal Credit Union for a total purchase price of $355,600 (See Exhibit A attached). The water was purchased at a price of $4,000 per acre foot. In our meetings with the UEP, it was repotied that additional water rights for the City of Hildale could be provided at no cost to the community provided the impact fee was reduced to an amount agreeable to the UEP. It was also reported that water rights could be obtained in Arizona for no cost, which the IFFP considered. However, as evidenced by the notes from the public hearing shown in Attachment B, there was no apparent agreement reached at the time the IFFP was prepared. From our discussions with the UEP, it is our understanding that they maintain the position that they are v,rilling to provide the water rights needed as part of the IFFP at no cost provided the impact fee is reduced an amount propmiionate to the credit given. The City of Hildale already purchased 88.9-acre feet of water leaving 76.9-acre feet of water to be purchased. However, the additional water rights will not be required in the I0-year horizon provided for in the IFFP (see Table page 44).
Due to the fact the water rights were purchased at a lower rate than contemplated in the IFFP, there could be a reduction to the total impact fee eligible amount of approximately $44,000. During the

ALPHA
ENG!NEERING

Page J3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 18 of 28

Impact Fee Analysis Review for Hildale City and the Town of Colorado City January 25,2018

I 0-year planning period $I80.00 per connection.

it

is

anticipated

that

there

would

be

245

connections

for

a

net

reduction

of

Summary

In summary 37-38)

our

findings

have

established

the

following

as

it relates

to

the

Court

Order

(pgs.

15,

I)

Segregating commercial and industrial customers from residential significantly affect the usage assigned for a residential customer.

customers

did

not

2) 3)

Water rights held by the UEP may be available at no cost, but the Client has already purchased water rights which were within the limits of the costs provided in the IFFP. iwtDsheuearreneettipoccuoitpruhcalehdtefabadsceettdahwartoetadtapeunrrcorItviFigoiFdhnPtestohfwoatrhesretaheieumpsugperrafcouchwltatflsheiefeedoofoafttfh$a5eI8ltcoo0ow.m70e0rmypepuarenirrcsitecyaotnhnfdoanrneifcactpwoiponarnttoe.exmrEirmnpioglaauhttegteslhdywwin1ea0rtteheyereaabrIiFrlgseF.hPttIost,

be be

obtained modified

at at

no cost or that time.

a

lower

cost

for

future

needs

of

the

communities,

the

IFFP

could

Let us know if we can provide any additional information any questions regarding the above, please feel free to call.

concerning

this

analysis.

If you

have

Sincerely,

Brent E. Gardner, PE
ALPHA ENGINEERING CO'l\1PANY
Attachments: Exhibit A- Water right purchase contract Exhibit B -Notes from public hearing
Cc via email: Raymond Barlow, Manager, Hildale City David Darger, Manager, Colorado City Justin Barlow, Colorado City Roger Cmier, Court Monitor Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Donnelly, Matthew (CRT) Ryals, Stephen (CRT) P01ier, Nicole (CRT) Sacks, Noah (CRT)

ALPHA
ENmNEEF~!NG

Page 14

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 19 of 28 EXHIBIT A

WATER RIGHTS PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This Agreement is dated the~ day of May, 2016, by and b.etween Utah Community Federal Credit Union, a federally-chartered credit union with a place ofbusiness at 188 West River Park Drive, Provo, UT 84604 ("Seller"), and the City ofHildale, Utah, a municipality with a place ofbusiness at 320 East Newel Ave., Hildale, UT 84784 ("Buyer"). Seller and Buyer may collectively be referred to herein as the "Parties" and may individually be referred to herein as a "Party."

RECITALS \VHEREAS, Seller owns the water right identified by the State of Utah as water no. 81-5104 (the UCCU Water Right); WHEREAS, Buyer desires to purchase 88.9 acre feet of the said water right under the terms and conditions contained herein.

AGREEMENT

WHEREFOR, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals above are hereby incorporated as if fully restated in this Section 1.

2. Agreement to Sell and Purchase Water Rights. Seller hereby agrees to sell and convey to Buyer, and Buyer hereby agrees to purchase and acquire from Seller 88.9 acre feet of the UCCU Water Right. Buyer acknowledges and agrees that UCCU shall retain 5 acre feet ofthe UCCU Water Right and shall retain all right, power, and authority to use, sell, transfer, or otherwise exercise ownership over the remaining 5 acre feet of the UCCU Water Right.
3. Deposit and Purchase Price. Upon execution ofthis Agreement, Buyer shall deposit with UCCU Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) toward the purchase price of the 88.9 acre feet ofthe UCCU Water Right. UCCU may keep the deposited funds in a non-interest bearing account and shall not permit withdrawals from the account. In the event that Buyer does not tender the remainder of the total Purchase Price (as defined below) on or before the Closing Date set forth below, the entire $10,000.00 shall be nomefundable and shall become the property of Seller. Upon closing, Buyer shall pay Seller an additional Three Hundred and Fmiy-Five Thousand and Six Hundred Dollars ($345,600.00) in exchange for the 89.9 acre feet of the UCCU Water Right for a total purchase price of Three Hundred arid Fifty-Five Thousand and Six Hundred Dollars ($355,600.00) (the "Purchase Price"). Upon Closing, Seller may transfer the $10,000.00 deposit to any account owned or controlled by Seller and otherwise exercise ownership over the deposited funds.

4. Warranties. Seller does hereby represent, covenant and warrant to Buyer that Seller has the full

right and authority to enter into this Agreement and to consummate the transaction intended in

~~f?

Initials of Buyer's Representative {) ..-

Initials of Seller's Representative__&"

Page 1 of3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 20 of 28

this Agreement, and no other consent to do so is required. Seller has no knowledge of any outstanding judgments against Seller that would in any manner affect the consummation of this transaction or constitute any cloud upon the title to the water rights. Seller has no knowledge of any pending litigation, proceedings, or investigations, or any threats of litigation, proceedings or investigations, which might result in any cloud upon the title to the water rights, or any other material change in the value of the water rights. Seller does not warrant that the point of diversion for the purchased water can be transferred to any specific geographic location. Buyer expressly waives any and all warranties not expressly set forth in this paragraph 4. Buyer further assumes all risk that the State of Utah or some other governing body will not permit the point of diversion for the subject water to be moved and/or may not permit the subject water to be used for any specific purpose.
5. Documentation and Payment of Transfer Fees. The Parties understand and agree that it will be necessary to execute and record with Washington County a deed to transfer the water right. Seller agrees to provide the deed to Buyer after full payment has been received by Seller; Buyer agrees to promptly record the fully executed deed promptly after receipt of the deed by Buyer. Buyer further agrees that after the Closing, Buyer shall, at its sole expense, file with the State of Utah Water Engineer's Office a Notice of Transfer and an application to change the point of diversion for the subject 89.9 acre feet of water to the point desired by Buyer. Buyer further agrees to execute after Closing any documents requested by Seller for the purpose of demonstrating the transfer of ownership to Buyer. In the event that Buyer and Seller cannot agree upon the form of the deed or any other document necessary for this transaction, Seller may at any time and in its sole discretion terminate and void this Agreement and return to Buyer its deposit as liquidated and total damages and in full settlement of any dispute between the Parties.
6. Closing. Closing of this transaction shall be deemed complete when payment has been made in full to Seller. Closing shall occur on or before June 30, 2016 (the "Closing Date"). Seller shall have up to five business days after Closing to provide Seller with the deed for recording in Washington County.
7. Brokerage Fees. Seller and Buyer shall each indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, debts or liabilities arising out of or on account of either party's brokerage fees. Seller and Buyer shall each indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, debt or liabilities arising out of or on account of any breach of any provision of this Agreement including, without limitation, the making of a false representation or breach of any covenant or warranty contained herein.
8. Attorney's Fees. Buyer and Seller shall be responsible for any fees or costs of their respective attorneys and consultants in connection to the drafting of this Agreement and the execution of the Closing. In the event that either Party must bring a lawsuit to enforce this Agreement, the Party against whom the contract is enforced shall pay the attorney's fees, consultant's fees, and costs of the prevailing Party.

//(:}
Initials of Buyer's Representati;:fp Initials of Seller's Representative ;(J;(

Page 2 of3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 21 of 28

9. Other provisions. All of the agreements between the parties shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their successors, personal representative, heirs or assigns. The captions of any articles, paragraphs or sections hereof are made for convenience only and shall not control or affect the meaning or construction of any other provisions hereof. This Agreement merges all previous negotiations between the parties hereto and constitutes the entire Agreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No alteration, modification, or amendment hereto shall be valid except in writing and when signed by the Parties.
Dated as of the date first set forth above.
SELLER:
UTAH COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
BY: Brian Luke ITS: AVP Business Services
BUYER:
CITY OF HILDALE, UTAH
BX: Justin - ow (TS: Utility Business Manager

.

-<:;,;2,

'72-/ Initials of Buyer's Representative~ Initials of Seller's Representative

Page 3 of3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 22 of 28
EXHIBIT B
TOWN OF COLORADO CITY * P. 0. Box 70 Colorado City, AI·izona 86021
Phone & TDD: 928-875-2646 *Fax: 928-875-2778
January 15, 2015
David Darger's Notes:
At the public hearing regarding a proposed water infrastructure facilities plan and possible
impact fees, Mr. Wisan, UEP Special Fiduciary spoke very briefly and said that he had some concerns with the report and public notice but did not elaborate further. He was invited to express his concerns but he declined to do so.
Zachary Renstrom, UEP Engineer, also spoke very briefly and said he had some concerns with the report. Upon inquiry, he said that he would like to discuss his concerns with the Tovvn's engineers, whereupon he was invited to do so at his earliest convenience. He also declined to express his concerns at the public hearing.
After the meeting Dustyn Shaffer with Sunrise Engineering talked to Zachary Renstrom about scheduling a meeting to discuss any engineering concerns. Also, after the meeting, I asked J'v1r. Wisan what his concems were regarding the public hearing notice. I told him that the Town Council had adopted the notice of hearing sixty days ago in a public meeting, had published it in the newspaper, posted it on the web a11d in the community, inviting public comment. The Utility Board had also been discussing the report in public meetings.
He said that they (the United Effort PJan Tmst) had hired a municipal law attorney who had identified several concerns. I asked Mr. Wisan if Mr. Renstrom was going to review their public
notice concerns when he met with Sum-ise Engineering? Mr. Wisan said that Mr. Renstrom was not going to deal with the public notice concerns, and pointed to a list of concerns in his
notebook that he said he would not disclose.
I told Mr. Wisan that if there were valid concerns the Town should know about them so that they can be addressed, and told him that if he said there were concerns and then refused to identify them, it appeared as though he was trying to prevent the Town from developing water or implementing impact fees. He said that they agreed with the Town developing water and implementing impact fees, but just didn't want a discriminatory situation. I assm·ed him that the Town did not intend to discriminate and is only trying to go through this process in the right way.
Mr. \Visan then began discussing proposed UEP subdivision concepts and pulled Zachary Renstrom into the discussion regarding utility mapping that was available and plat submittals proposed for the near future. I informed them that the UEP proposal will need to be presented to the To\:1.711 Council. Mr. Wisan said he hoped the subdivision can be accomplished in a manner as
Page 1 of2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 23 of 28
appropriate for the City and acceptable to the Trust without involving attorneys. I agreed with him and reminded him that the Town has hired Rick Engineering to handle the process, engineer to engineer. I told him that we understood there were existing buildings and existing infrastructure that wan-anted some allowances. He said he understood that if there \vas property without infrastructure in place, that there would be more requirements. He said he was attempting to sell lots that were already in a service area. Mr. Wisan said that they would like to wait to identify their concerns. I told Mr. Vlisan that if he waited while the Town goes through the long public hearing process and unaware of a concern aimed to derail the impact fee implementation process, it would be a big waste oftime and resources; The Town would like to address his concems now rather than later. Mr. Wisan then admitted that the reason why he wanted to wait was to see how the Town reacted to his subdivision requests to see ifthe Town's attitude was worthy ofthe Trust working with the Town. I questioned why if he had a concem with the impact fee facilities plan, that he did not want to notify the Tnwn of those concerns. He said he wanted to see if the To-vvn started functioning like a real city, then there would be a lot more assistance and help and it would determine what they do and how they do it. I assured hin1 that the Town was attempting to work tlu·ough the issues in the pl'Oper way. I told
him that ifhe had a concern ·with the proposed enactment of impact fees then to let us know so
we could address them.
~~
David Darger, Town Manager
Page 2 of2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 24 of 28
Exhibit D

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 25 of 28
AFFIDAVIT OF TRAINING

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED UNDER THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE GRANTING RELIEF

Employee's Full N a m e : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date h i r e d : - - - - - - - - Position title:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

The above-named employee has completed the training indicated below:

Training Required

Date Complete

1.

Requirements of Injunction

2.

Constitutional Training

3.

Fair Housing Training

I, the undersigned employee, declare under penalty of perjury, that I have received the training indicated above and that the information provided on this certificate is true and correct.
Employee S i g n a t u r e : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 26 of 28
Exhibit E

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 27 of 28
Page 1 of 2

January 24, 2018
To: Mayor Allred, Mayor Jessop, David Darger, Raymond Barlow From: Roger Carter, Court Monitor Re: Timetable matrix of Injunction requirements
In order to assist in the proactive adherence to court mandated time-tables I am providing the following chart for your assistance.

Compliance Requirement
Modification of Building Department policies and procedures (Section V.C (4)(7))1
Modification of water service regulations (Section V.C (12))2

Time Frame
30 days prior to adoption
30 days prior to adoption

Reporting Court Monitor Court Monitor

35 days from receipt

Adoption of new culinary water impact fees (Section V.C of Update Impact Fee

(17))

Report

Court Monitor

Modification to culinary water impact fees (Section V.C 30 days prior to

(21))

adoption

Court Monitor

Posting of Council and Utility Board meetings (Section
v.c (23)(b))

24 hours

Public

Annual training for required employees as outlined in section V.C (24) of the Court Order

Annually in September

Monitor

New hire training for required employees as outlined in

section V.C (24) of the Court Order

30 days from hire

Monitor

Denials or no-action on municipal land-use decisions, rules or ordinances (Section V.C (131 )(b))

30 days

Modifications to any ordinances, regulations, procedures, Upon coordination policies outlined but not limited to section V.C (31)(c)).3 with the Cities

Release of documents as outlined in section V.C (37) of

the the Court Order

Upon request

Monitor and applicant Court Monitor Monitor

1 All modifications to Building Department policies and procedures are to be submitted to the Court Monitor clearly showing all recommended deleted (strikeout) changes and all recommended proposed changes (redline). 2 All modifications to water service regulations are to be submitted to the Court Monitor clearly showing all recommended deleted (strikeout) changes and all recommended proposed changes (redline). 3 All modified ordinances, regulations, procedures, and policies are to be submitted to the Court Monitor clearly showing all recommended deleted (strikeout) changes and all recommended proposed changes (redline).

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 28 of 28
Page 2 of 2

o"JnulydgaenmdTheminsat ytaanbbdeleDmiseocndroiefiteebdGefrrcaoonmntisntiigdmeIerne-jtudon-cctiotmimveeprReehleienfs'.iveThnisorisreplireodviudpeodnfowritchoonuvtecnoiennscueltinpgurtphoeses

It is the responsibility of the Cities to adhere to reminded by the Court Monitor. Failure to proactively in notification of non-compliance with the Courts.

these timelines and not wait to be comply with these requirements can

result

Please notify me if you have any questions.

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1153 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 4
January 5, 2018
To: United States District Court For the District of Arizona
From: Jim Keith, Professional Police Consultant for the Colorado City Marshals Office
Re:​ No. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division). The Defendant Cities’ Police Consultant will please provide the court with a status report with respect to compliance with paragraph V.B(3) of the court’s Order on or before January 15, 2018.
On May 30, 2017, I was appointed by the Court to serve as the Police Consultant for the Colorado City Marshals Office in Arizona.
In addition to the status of policy development, I am including some of the other areas I have been involved in with reference to the Marshals office, all in an effort to help them enhance the public safety services they provide, specifically in the areas referenced in the Judgement and Decree.
The policies are being done with the Lexipol Policy Group platform. These policies are reviewed and updates sent out by the Lexipol group, based on state and federal law changes, to each department using their platform on a regular basis. It is a little unique with the Marshals office serving two states. We have combined policy from both states (Arizona and Utah) in the policies that have significant differences, and made it clear at the beginning of the policy manual that it is the responsibility of the individual Member to know and understand both state laws, as well as the policies, as they serve both cities.
I accept responsibility for the delay in the policy development process. It has taken longer than expected to put them together, sending them to the two cities attorneys and the DOJ for review and then waiting to get them back.
In reference to the three policies that were specifically spelled out by the court V.B(3), they have all been submitted to the DOJ for their review. The Hiring and Complaint/IA policies first drafts, were sent in mid October. I had phone conversation with the DOJ team on their suggestions and recommendations for those two policies in late October. I made the changes and sent them back to the DOJ in mid November for their second review.
I have since sent the complete draft policy manual, to include the last of the three specific policies highlighted in the court order, Body Worn Cameras to the DOJ team the first of December. We had phone conversation with them on December 15th, about their proposed schedule to send them back to me for final revisions after their review.
They have proposed that they will send them back in three groups. The first being the middle of January, the second being sometime in mid March and the third being in May, with my

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1153 Filed 03/30/18 Page 2 of 4
responses to theirs within two weeks of receiving them. We all agreed that the reality being closer to the end of June for finalization of the entire manual. We had both cities attorney on the conference call with the DOJ team and all agreed to this timeline pending approval from the court.
The two cities attorney will do the specific training ordered by the court as soon as they can. As each of the three groups of policies are approved I will begin training the Marshals office on each policy, (at their request) completing training on the entire manual sometime after the final is approved by the DOJ in mid 2018.
The Washington County Attorney's office did training that complied with V.B(3)(f), in late September.
The following is some of the progress that has been made in an effort to help the Marshals office be successful:
● I met initially with both City Councils, Mayors and Town Managers and shared my goal and objective moving forward, which is “To help the Marshals Office provide Professional, Equitable, Fair and Consistent policing services to the citizens and visitors of their community”.
● I met with both Colorado City and Hildale Managers and Councils in reference to being competitive with salary and medical/retirement benefits. I advised them that in order to accomplish what is needed to be successful in recruiting experienced, outside law enforcement professionals and retaining them, is a competitive plan moving forward. I shared with them a competitive plan that allows for growth within the agency, as well as, new hires.
● Four key areas we will focus on by providing new policy, training and accountability are as follows: ○ To build trust and confidence with the majority of all community members regardless of race, religion, color, shape, size, ethnicity etc… ○ Create professional, trusted and confident working relationships with adjoining jurisdictions, to include Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), County Attorneys offices and Sheriff Offices in both states. ○ Hiring, recruiting and retention of professional police officers. ○ Provide fair, equitable and consistent service to all community members.
● V.B(3)(a)Based on the new hiring policy that has been submitted, applications were accepted and testing was completed for three new Deputy positions (9-26-17). Three have been given conditional job offers based on them passing the police academy that they are now enrolled in.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1153 Filed 03/30/18 Page 3 of 4
○ We had moved forward on this prior to approval of the policy through DOJ because of the urgency, the need for additional Deputies, while trying to meet the timeline in the court order. I wanted to do it under the new guidelines that were listed in the order, and we accomplished this. All three have passed the first portion of the academy recently and are now attending the Law Enforcement block in the academy, and are scheduled to graduate in mid-April.
● V.B(3)(g) A working relationship must exist between the two respective County Attorneys offices and Sheriff Departments, Mohave County and Washington County, in order for the Marshals office to succeed with the direction of the court. I have met with each of these agencies and had a lengthy discussion on the importance of this working relationship moving forward for all parties involved. They have agreed to meet with the Marshal and his staff to start rebuilding the professional relationship that needs to exist. I have facilitated meetings with Washington County SO, Washington County Attorney's office and Mohave County SO. We will be meeting with Mohave County Attorney's office in Nevada, in January. I feel all three have been very productive, however there is a lot of ground to cover to get where they need to be on both sides. We were able to do these meetings in Colorado City at the Marshal’s office, with the exception of the MC Attorney’s office, it will be on 1-11-18 in Nevada at their request.
● I have conducted several Training/Discussions with the Marshals office staff in the following areas: ○ Report writing- complete and accurate account of their actions/investigations ○ Investigations- thorough, complete and accurate, fair, consistent and objective, unbiased police work on every call. ○ Accountability for behavior and actions while on duty and off duty. ○ Discussion on the need to do quality, professional police work in their community that is now very different and much more diverse. ○ The Marshal shared his expectations of each Deputy moving forward in reference to the above listed areas during these trainings, which were consistent and reinforced the perspective I had delivered.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the court with an update to what has been done thus far with the Marshals Office. I am hopeful that as we move forward implementing the new policies, training and future audits, checks and balances, they will continue to develop and enhance the service the Marshals office provides to their community. There has been progress, however, there is still a lot of work to do and room to grow in all areas listed above. This entire process will require a major change in the way policing has been perceived and delivered in this community in the past. The dynamics and diversity in this community have drastically changed in the last couple years, people moving out and others moving in. They have the potential to become a professional, trusted Public Safety Department in the future, if they continue to work hard and implement the changes requested.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1153 Filed 03/30/18 Page 4 of 4
Please let me know if you have further questions or would like an update in the future on the progress of my efforts with the Marshals Office.

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1154 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 2
March 28, 2018 
To: United States District Court for the District of Arizona 
From: Jim Keith, Professional Police Consultant for the Colorado City Marshals Office
Re: No. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division). The Defendant Cities’ Police Consultant will please provide the court with a status report with respect to the following: 1- Update on the FHA injunction and policies/procedures training for the Colorado City and Hildale staff by the two cities, 2 – Update on the policy training provided by the Police Consultant, 3- The reports prepared for and provided to the Court Monitor.
1 - The two cities attorneys are scheduled to finish their required FHA injunction and policies/procedures training with the Colorado City and Hildale staff on March 30th. Attached are the training materials.
2 – The policy training being provided by me is going as planned in the schedule approved by the court. The first policy training was provided to the CCMO staff on March 5th. The next training is scheduled for April 2nd. This will complete the training for the policies that have been approved by the DOJ to date.
3 – The individual incident reports requested by the Police Consultant for the Court Monitor are being provided in an accurate, complete and timely manner. The monthly report requested for February was complete, accurate and provided in a timely manner as well.
The following information may be of interest to the court as we move forward.
The Chief Marshal no longer works for the agency and we have begun the recruiting process to hire a new Chief Marshal from outside the area to lead this department. We have posted the position in both Utah and Arizona law enforcement communities, as well as, on the International Association of Chiefs of Police Web Site.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1154 Filed 03/30/18 Page 2 of 2
The CCMO has decided to add an additional Supervisor (Sergeant) position to their team. The position has been posted to the same website and in the same areas as the Chief Marshals position above. This additional position will help ensure they have adequate resources for the new policies, procedures, processes and supervision to be carried out in a professional manner.
Thank you, and please let me know if you have any further questions.

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 59 1
May 1, 2018 To: United States District Court for the District of Arizona From: Roger Carter, Court Monitor Re: May 2018 Monitoring Report for the cities of Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah.
This report is submitted in compliance with § V.C. (39) of the Judgement and Decree Granting Injunctive Relief (“Order”), requiring a written report every 90 days on injunction compliance by the Defendant Cities and the activities of the Court Monitor. This report will cover the period from February 1, 2018, to April 30, 2018, and include a current status of compliance on all the Order requirements, identify any obstacles to the work of the Monitor and provide general observations (§ V.C. (40)).
Fair Housing Injunction Requirements Items in Compliance with the Injunction
The towns of Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona are currently in compliance with the following Court injunction requirements.
1. Subdivision Plat - Recorded September 26, 2017 2. Adoption of Building Department policies and codes - Adopted September 2017. 3. Water Service regulations - Adopted September 2017. 4. Culinary Water Impact Fee - A new water impact fee was presented to the communities
on January 25, 2018, and was adopted by Hildale, Utah on February 13, 20181 and Colorado City, Arizona on February 12. 20182. This requirement is complete. 5. Elected and Staff Contact Information on the website - All information is current. 6. Notice of all Meetings, Minutes, etc. - All minutes and notices are current. 7. All Department Codes, policies, regulations on the website - All information is current.
1, Exhibit A 2 Exhibit B

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 2 of 59 2
8. Mandatory Education & Training - Constitutional training and Fair Housing Training occurred in September 2017. Injunction Training occurred on March 30, 2018.3 This requirement is now complete. New hire training continues but is current.
Outstanding Injunction Items There are currently no injunction items outstanding. Current Monitoring Efforts
Marshalls Office The Monitor is to ensure that there are no violations of Fair Housing requirements by
employees of the Marshal’s Office. A. Overall the 24-hour reporting requirement by the Marshall’s office has been observed. There have been some failures largely due to the changes in the department and the new employees. B. Work continues, in conjunction with the Police Consultant, in syncing up the monthly Computer Aided Dispatch ("CAD") report and the Incident Reports. There are still some discrepancies between the incident numbers on the two reports, which makes it difficult to track. Although this doesn't appear to be intentional, resolving this issue is necessary to ensure transparency and accountability. C. The Monitor works closely with both the Police Consultant and Mentor and includes the following summary, as provided by them. a. Police Consultant - The Marshall's Office is moving forward with the policy training as scheduled and several have occurred this past month. The department is accepting applications for a new Chief and a new Sergeant. The Consultant has met with the new Mayor and new city managers of both cities. At these meetings, it was discussed how to move the department forward while working together to enhance the perception of the department. A new Chief will
3 Exhibit C

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 3 of 59 3
create a fresh-start with a new outside perspective. This will develop trust and confidence within the community. b. Mentor - Since the resignation of the Chief, the Mentor's role has been to support the Consultant in monitoring the progress of the new hires in the department as well as the posting and recruiting of the new Chief. Three new officers were recently hired and are going through their field-training. It is anticipated that a new Chief should be hired within the next month. This new hire will be critical in moving forward in this department. There are currently, perceived differences between the two communities in how they view this department but these differences should be resolved as the Marshall's Office moves forward. Monitor During this reporting period, the Monitor: A. The Monitor attended city and town council meetings, planning commission meetings, utility board meetings and executive sessions. B. Met with staff and elected officials. C. Reviewed modifications to codes or ordinances that pertain to Fair Housing, including discussions on the proposed new zoning ordinances. D. Reviewed records to ensure compliance with injunction requirements. E. Followed up on the following complaints by residents:
a. A complaint was filed by an individual who felt that his earlier request to receive a lower impact fee was denied due to discrimination. This individual also felt that certain comments were made, by public officials, that were discriminatory in nature. After an investigation, it was determined that there was a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the impact fee denial and the claim regarding discriminatory comments were without merit.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 4 of 59 4
b. A business filed a complaint regarding the potential disruption of utility services based on their religious affiliation. The claimant, who owns and operates a water-bottling company, felt that there was an overt effort on the part of the Hildale Utility department to disconnect their water services and to provide those services to a competing business. After review of the information, Hildale City was informed, by the Monitor, that no disruption of service could occur because the current customer complied with all ordinances and policies. There is a current dispute between the community and the complainant on waterline ownership which the Monitor will continue to watch.
c. A complaint was filed by a business owner complaining that Colorado City was not responding in a timely manner to a business license request. This issue is currently being resolved. Summary
This last reporting period saw some dramatic changes occur within the two communities. In February a new city manager was hired in Hildale, and the Chief of the Colorado City Marshall's Office resigned. In March the City Manager of Colorado City resigned, and in April a new manager was hired. In April, two council seats in Hildale were vacated. As each of these positions play a significant role in the making of policy and the setting of direction for the communities, there is a great opportunity to begin anew. This is a crucial moment for the communities as new leaders with new talents and skills look and plan toward the future.
Feelings continue to be sensitive between the religious factions of the community. During the last reporting period, the Monitor received the first complaint by an FLDS party claiming disparate treatment and discrimination by non-FLDS elected officials and staff. It is anticipated that these conflicts will occassionally occur as the community continues to diversify and learn how to cooperatively work together. The Monitor will continue to oversee compliance

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 5 of 59 5
issues and respond to any complaints of discrimination by elected officials or staff, irrespective of religious affiliation or protected class.
The two communities are challenged to find the "new normal" in their efforts to cooperatively work together. The ideological and cultural differences of the community, which are more apparent today than ever, pose a formidable hurdle. Religious beliefs, cultural insensitivity, and diversification have all placed a strain on, what has historically been, a regional community. Compounding this is the establishment of first-time policies and regulations, such as subdivision, zoning, and utility codes, which may have to vary between the communities due to differences in state statutes and requirements. For the first time, in the history of this area, the Utah/Arizona border is having an impact. It is anticipated that local officials will have to find new ways to navigate, as independent identities seeking ways to address areas of common purpose.
As customs, traditions, and practices give way to new models of community governance, leadership gaps and power vacuums will naturally occur. Monitoring these transitions will be necessary to make sure that individuals or groups are not taken advantge of and to ensure that all members of the community are treated equally and fairly.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 6 of 59

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 7 of 59
Exhibit A

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 8 of 59

Entity: Hildale

Body: Hildale City

Subject: Notice Title: Meeting Location:
Event Date & Time: Description/Agenda:

Business Hildale City Council Meeting 320 East Newel Avenue

Hildale 84784

February 13, 2018 February 13, 2018 04:00 PM

PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given

that the Hildale City Council will hold a Public

Meeting on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 4:00 P.M. in

the Council Chambers of the Hildale City Hall, located

at 320 East Newel Avenue, Hildale, Utah.

Pledge of Allegiance

1.

CALL TO ORDER

2.

DECLARATION OF ABSTENTIONS & CONFLICTS

3.

PUBLIC COMMENT (FINAL ACTION ON A TOPIC MAY

NOT BE TAKEN UCA § 52-4-202(6)(C))

4.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE

THE MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF

01/16/2018 WITH EXECUTIVE CLOSED MINUTES AND BOTH

MEETINGS ON 01/30/2018.

5.

CONSIDERATION TO CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF A NEW

CITY TREASURER.

6.

CONSIDERATION TO CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF A NEW

CITY RECORDER

7.

CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING WATER IMPACT FEES

AS ORDERED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO.

2018-02-01 AMENDING THE REGULATOR MEETING DATE FOR

HILDALE CITY AND TO AUTHORIZE AMENDING THE ANNUAL

MEETING NOTICE FOR 2018.

9.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO.

2018-02-01 AMMENDMENTS TO THE RATE AND FEE SCHEDULE

(BUSINESS LICENSE FEES)

10.

CONSIDERATION TO GIVE CONSENT FOR AN OFF-

PREMISES BEER RETAILER'S LICENSE FOR: THE BORDER STORE.

11.

CONSIDERATION TO GIVE CONSENT FOR A TOBACCO

SALES BUSINESS LICENSE FOR: THE BORDER STORE.

12.

LARGE PURCHASES: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL TO

PURCHASE GPS OR GRADE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR A CAT 140M

ROAD GRADER.

13.

REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES

a.

AIRPORT

b.

AZ STRIP LANDFILL

c.

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

d.

BUSINESS LICENSE

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH
e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p.

Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 9 of 59
CORRESPONDENCE DISPATCH DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT JUSTICE COURT UTILITY DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION POLICE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY TREASURER CITY RECORDER CITY MANAGER MAYOR

14.

INDUSTRIAL PARK

15.

FINANCIAL REPORT AND OUTSTANDING DUES AND

CLAIMS

16.

NEW BUSINESS

17.

CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IF NEEDED

18.

PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION, CLAIMS,

AND DEMANDS

A. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE A CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT WITH WEDGEWOOD DEVELOPMENT.

19.

ADJOURNMENT

Posted this 12th day of February 2018

Raymond C. Barlow, City Recorder

Notice of Special Accommodations:

NOTE: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER AT 435.874.2323 AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO MEETING.

Notice of Electronic or telephone participation: Other information: Contact Information:
Posted on: Last edited on:

Council Members may be attending by telephone.
Vincen Barlow (435)874-2323 recorder@hildalecity.com February 12, 2018 02:53 PM February 12, 2018 02:53 PM

Printed from Utah's Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov/)

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 10 of 59
Exhibit B

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 11 of 59
TOWN OF COLORADO CITY
MEETING NOTICE
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Colorado City Town Council and to the general public that the Town Council will hold a meeting open to the public on Wednesday, February 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. at the Colorado City Town Hall, 25 South Central Street, Colorado City, Arizona.

AGENDA: Executive Session at 5:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s)
4. Public Comments / Informational Summaries
5. Motion for Executive Session to be Held March 12, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. for Discussion and Consultation with Legal Counsel for Legal Advice in Accordance with § A.R.S. 38431.03. (A) (3) & (4) (item 6 below)
6. Pending or Contemplated Litigation, Claims and Demands
7. Consider Resolution Adopting Facility Use Policy and Fees
8. Consider Resolution Adopting Water Impact Fees as Ordered by the United States District Court
9. Ratify Vehicle Lease-Purchase with ALLY Financial
10. Consider Hiring Administrative Assistant
11. Consider Hiring Part-Time Janitor
12. Consider Options for Replacing Police Chief Position
13. Consider Advertising for Police Administrative Positions
14. Renewal of Premise, Auto, Propane Delivery and Equipment Insurance with Allied Insurance
15. Capital Improvements Planning
16. Boards, Commissions and Department Reports a. Airport Advisory Committee b. Planning Commission c. Public Works Advisory Board d. Arizona Strip Landfill Corporation e. Utility Board - Ratify Board Actions f. Other Departments
17. Budget Report and Order to Pay Due Claims
18. Adjournment

Town of Colorado City Town Council Meeting Agenda – February 12, 2018

Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 12 of 59
Agenda items and any variables thereto are set for consideration, discussion, approval or other action. All items are set for possible action. The Town Council may, by motion, recess into executive session, which will not be open to the public, to receive legal advice from the Town’s attorney(s) on any item contained in this agenda pursuant to ARS § 38-431.03 (A) (3)(4), or regarding sensitive personnel issues pursuant to ARS § 38-431.03 (A) (1), or concerning negotiations for the purchase, sale or lease of real property; ARS § 38-431.03 (A) (7). One or more Council members may be attending by telephone. Agenda may be subject to change up to 24 hours prior to the meeting. Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation by contacting the Town Clerk at 928.875.2646 as early as possible to allow sufficient time to arrange for the necessary accommodations. Town of Colorado City Council Meeting Agenda

Town of Colorado City Town Council Meeting Agenda – February 12, 2018

Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 13 of 59
Exhibit C

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 14 of 59

Hildale & Colorado City: New Policies, Procedures, Regulations, and Ordinances
R. Blake Hamilton & Jeff Matura

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 15 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Policing Act Injunction V.(B)
▪ Hildale and Colorado City are prohibited from engaging in conduct that:
▪ Violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; ▪ Violates the Fourth Amendment; ▪ Violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment;

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 16 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Policing Act Injunction V.(B)(2)-(3)
▪ Cities must engage the services of a police Consultant (Chief Keith)
▪ The Consultant shall assist the Cities in:
▪ Developing new policies and procedures for hiring of officers ▪ Advertising and searching for 2 additional officers ▪ Developing new policies and procedures for internal affairs investigations ▪ Conducting a comprehensive review, update, and/or revision of all CCMO
policies ▪ Purchasing body cameras and implementing a pilot program for their use ▪ Providing yearly training to the CCMO on the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, the state and federal Fair Housing Acts, landlord/tenant law, trespass law, and other topics the Cities deem appropriate ▪ Facilitating a meeting with the CCMO Chief and the County Sheriffs ▪ Obtaining a Mentor (Chief Flowers) for the Chief Marshall, meetings monthly for the first year

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 17 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Fair Housing Act Injunction V.(C)(1)
▪ Hildale and Colorado City shall not:
▪ Make housing unavailable or deny housing opportunities to individuals because of religion in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3604(a);
▪ Discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the rental or sale of a dwelling because of religion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3604(b); or
▪ Coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided and encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, a right granted by the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3617.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 18 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Fair Housing Act Injunction V.(C)(2)
▪ Approval of Subdivision Plat
▪ Colorado City shall renew discussions to create a recordable subdivision plat
▪ Colorado City shall approve the plat and deliver it to the UEP for recording

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 19 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Fair Housing Act Injunction V.(C)(3)-(8)
▪ Building Department Policies and Procedures
▪ Hildale and Colorado City shall adopt:
▪ Objective, uniform, and non-discriminatory policies and procedures to govern the operation of the Cities’ building department and building officials related to the handling of building permits and applications for associated licenses and certificates, including: ▪ Building permit application requirements ▪ Plan review process ▪ Building inspections ▪ Bases for permit application denials and permit revocations ▪ Assessment of fees

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 20 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Fair Housing Act Injunction V.(C)(3)-(8)
▪ Building Department Policies and Procedures
▪ Must include the following:
▪ Statement that the Cities may not take action on a permit for arbitrary reasons, or on the basis of religious affiliation;
▪ Statement that Cities shall not issue a permit unless the application includes the signature of the property owner;
▪ An application form with lines for the name, contact information, and signature of the property owner or representative;
▪ Statement giving 14 days written notice to the owner and applicant before a permit expires or is cancelled, stating the reasons for expiration or cancellation;
▪ A procedure that allows permit holders and applications to appeal adverse decisions

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 21 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Fair Housing Act Injunction V.(C)(3)-(8)
▪ Building Department Policies and Procedures
▪ Can only be modified with written notice to the United States and the Monitor 30 days before the proposed modifications go into effect, including the modification requested and the documentation supporting the modification
▪ Policies may not be enforced in a manner that discriminates based upon religion.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 22 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Fair Housing Act Injunction V.(C)(9)-(13)
▪ Amendments to Water Services Regulations
▪ Repeal outdated regulations based on “new water” requirements ▪ Amend regulations for requirements to transfer existing water connection
from existing customer to new customer to include:
▪ Attest under penalty of perjury that the new customer owns the property or has owner’s permission to occupy or obtain utilities for the property; and
▪ Show proof of ownership or permission to occupancy or obtain utilities (e.g. deed, rental agreement, lease).
▪ The revised regulations shall not require new transfer customers to:
▪ Obtain permission from existing customer by using the Utility Services Disconnect or Termination Application form or other means;
▪ Provide proof that the new customer has extinguished all other potential occupants’ rights to the property; or
▪ Wait any period of time for utility service to be transferred so that the existing customer can be contacted if the new customer provides the attestation and proof of ownership or right to occupy or obtain utility services

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 23 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Fair Housing Act Injunction V.(C)(9)-(13)
▪ Amendments to Water Services Regulations
▪ Can be modified only with written notice given to the United States and the Monitor 30 days before the proposed modifications go into effect, specifying the modification requested and any supporting documentation.
▪ Water service regulations shall not be enforced in a manner that discriminates based upon religion.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 24 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Fair Housing Act Injunction V.(C)(14)-(21)
▪ Culinary Water Impact Fee
▪ A court-appointed engineering firm (Alpha Engineering) shall perform a review of the Cities’ culinary water impact fee and provide the parties and the Court with an Updated Culinary Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Analysis (“Updated Impact Fee Report”).
▪ Should the Updated Impact Fee Report recommend a maximum eligible impact fee that is lower than the Cities’ current impact fee, the existing fee shall be revised within 35 days.
▪ The amount of any impact fee for culinary water connections may only be modified with written notice to the United States and the Monitor 30 days before the proposed modification is to take effect. The notice must include the proposed new amount and any reports or analyses supporting the modification.
▪ The Culinary Water Impact Fee plan shall be reviewed by a licensed engineer or engineering firm at no less than five-year intervals.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 25 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Websites and Public Notice V.(C)(22)-(23)
▪ Hildale and Colorado City must develop and maintain publicly available websites for the duration of the injunction
▪ Home page contents:
▪ Name and contact information for elected or appointed officials, and heads of city departments
▪ Notice of all upcoming city council and utility board meetings ▪ Links to mechanisms to apply for municipal services (building permits,
utility connections or transfers, subdivision applications, and public records requests) ▪ Links to municipal ordinances, codes, regulations, procedures, and policies, including CCMO manual and any revisions made according to the injunction
▪ Update links within 30 days of adoption, amendment, or repeal. ▪ Maintain paper and electronic copies during the injunction.
▪ Include the Court’s statement about the injunction

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 26 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Fair Housing Act Injunction V.(C)(24)-(28)
▪ Mandatory Education & Training
▪ Annual training on:
▪ The requirements of the injunction ▪ First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments ▪ Fair Housing Act ▪ Policies, procedures, regulations, and ordinances adopted or
amended pursuant to the Fair Housing Act Injunction
▪ New employees or officials must receive this training within 30 days of hire (can watch video of prior trainings)
▪ All persons required to attend trainings must sign a verification that they attended the training, with a copy sent to the United States for the first training and to the Monitor for all subsequent trainings.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 27 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Fair Housing Act Injunction V.(C)(29)-(41)
▪ Monitor
▪ Reviews municipal decisions by Hildale and Colorado City that implicate the Fair Housing Act and oversees implementation of all aspects and terms of the injunction. Duties include:
▪ Regular site visits, interviews, document review, meetings ▪ Review of applications and requests regarding utilities, building permits and
associated licenses and certificates, subdivision, zoning amendments and variances, and applications for exceptions to relief from any municipal land use decisions, rules, or ordinances, ▪ Review all modifications to ordinances, regulations, procedures, or policies affecting housing or municipal services related to housing ▪ Review all complaints regarding municipal actions potentially affecting rights associated with housing ▪ Review any proposed changes to Building Department Policies, Water Services Regulations, or culinary water impact fee ▪ Issue reports to the parties and the court regarding the Cities’ progress towards compliance with the injunction

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 28 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Fair Housing Act Injunction V.(C)(29)-(41)
▪ Monitor
▪ The Cities shall cooperate freely and fully with all reasonable monitoring activities and requests, including
▪ Providing Monitor with advance, timely notice of all regular and emergency public meetings sufficient to allow him to attend
▪ Allowing the Monitor full access to meetings ▪ Providing Monitor advance, timely notice of executive session
meetings, where the Monitor may request attendance ▪ Allowing Monitor full access to individuals, documents, meetings,
reviews, data and trainings ▪ Providing free, open, and immediate access to all documents, records,
files and information, including (1) documents in the Cities’ control (2) correspondence with the Cities and (3) records involving planning, reporting, decision-making, or investigative records (not including attorney-client privileged materials)

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 29 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Fair Housing Act Injunction V.(C)(29)-(41)
▪ Monitor
▪ The Monitor provides the parties and Court with a written report every 90 days for the first 2 years of the injunction
▪ If the Monitor identifies evidence of a violation of the terms of the injunction in the form of Fair Housing Act violations, the Monitor shall make a written report to the parties and allow the parties an opportunity to respond and provide witnesses for interviews in connection with the report

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 30 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Records and Rights to Access VI.(1)-(4)
▪ All records associated with complying with the injunction must be preserved
▪ The Monitor, the parties, and their attorneys shall have full and direct access to staff, employees, facilities, documents, records, files and data associated with the injunction, and be permitted to inspect and copy records associated with compliance with the injunction

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 31 of 59

Injunction Requirements
▪ Jurisdiction, Duration, Etc. VII.(1)-(9)
▪ The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the injunction
▪ The injunction is for 10 years ▪ The United States can move to extend the duration of the
injunction in the event of noncompliance ▪ Time limits can be extended by mutual agreement
between the parties, or a motion to the Court if an agreement cannot be reached

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 32 of 59

New Policies and Procedures
▪ Pursuant to the injunction, Hildale and Colorado City have amended the following:
▪ Water Services Regulations ▪ Building Department Policies and Procedures ▪ Culinary Water Impact Fee
▪ And adopted the following:
▪ Ordinances amending the above ▪ Ordinances repealing old water regulations

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 33 of 59

Hildale Ordinance 2017-05-01

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 34 of 59

Hildale Ordinance 2017-05-01

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 35 of 59

Colorado City Resolution 2017-14

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 36 of 59

Colorado City Resolution 2017-14

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 37 of 59

Amended Water Service Regulations

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 38 of 59

Amended Water Service Regulations

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 39 of 59

Amended Water Service Regulations
▪ Added provisions regarding transfer of an existing water connection:

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 40 of 59

Amended Water Service Regulations
▪ Deleted provisions requiring Department to verify change in occupancy. Now reads:

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 41 of 59

Amended Water Service Regulations
▪ Deleted provision permitting City to obtain a lien against the property in the event of non-payment

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 42 of 59

Amended Utility Services Application
▪ Page 1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 43 of 59

Amended Utility Services Application
▪ Page 2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 44 of 59

Amended Utility Services Application
▪ Page 3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 45 of 59

Amended Utility Services Application
▪ Page 3 was added for transfers of utility connections without permission of the existing customer:

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 46 of 59

Amended Utility Services Application
▪ Page 3: Applicant attests to right to transfer services

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 47 of 59

Amended Utility Services Application
▪ Page 3: Description of documentation provided by applicant

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 48 of 59

New Building Department Policies & Procedures
▪ Adopted New Building Department Policies & Procedures
▪ Apply to the building department of Hildale and Colorado City (101.01)
▪ Must be enforced uniformly and not to discriminate, no action can be taken for arbitrary reasons or on the basis of religion (101.02)

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 49 of 59

New Building Department Policies & Procedures
▪ 102 – Permit Application
▪ 102.01 - Department must provide an application at each City office and each City website
▪ 102.02 – Applicant must file an application that includes the following:
▪ Identifies and describes the work to be covered by the permit application
▪ Describe the land on which the work is to be done by legal description, street address, etc.
▪ Indicate the use for which work is intended ▪ Include construction documents, other submittal information, and
fees ▪ Include the name, contact information, and signature of the applicant
and property owner ▪ Other data required on the applicaiton

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 50 of 59

New Building Department Policies & Procedures
▪ 103 – Plan Review
▪ 103.01 – The building department shall examine the application for conformity to codes and regulations. If the application is deficient, the applicant shall be notified.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 51 of 59

New Building Department Policies & Procedures
▪ 104 – Building Permit
▪ 104.01 – The permit is issued after the complete application is made, documents are reviewed, and fees are paid.
▪ 104.02 – The permit is not issued unless the application includes the signature of the property owner or owners representative.
▪ 104.03 – The permit will not expire without 14-day prior written notice to the property owner and the applicant (at the address on the application) stating the basis for the decision, describing the appeals process, and providing a copy of the city code provision on appeals.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 52 of 59

New Building Department Policies & Procedures
▪ 104 – Building Permit (continued)
▪ 104.04 – Permit holder/applicant can appeal an adverse decision by following the appeals process found in Colorado City Town Code § 153.005 and Hildale City Code § 31-67. The time period for appeal runs from the date of the notice of the final adverse decision.
▪ 101.03 – “Adverse decision” is defined as “a decision significantly adverse to a permit holder or permit applicant, such as a decision to deny, withdraw, void, or cancel a permit.”

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 53 of 59

New Building Department Policies & Procedures
▪ 105 – Inspections
▪ 105.01 – Construction or work for which a permit is required is subject to inspection by the building department and must be accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until approved. Adverse decisions based upon building inspection reports may be appealed pursuant to 104.04.
▪ 105.02 – The building permit holder or their agent must notify the building department when work is ready for inspection. Inspections shall occur in a timely manner following notification.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 54 of 59

Amended Colorado City Building Permit Application
▪ Added owner signature line

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 55 of 59

Amended Hildale City Building Permit Application
▪ Added owner signature line

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 56 of 59

Impact Fees Review

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 57 of 59

Impact Fees Review

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 58 of 59

Updated Impact Fees

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 59 of 59

Updated Impact Fees

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-2 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 2
April 28, 2018 
To: United States District Court for the District of Arizona 
From: Jim Keith, Professional Police Consultant for the Colorado City Marshals Office
Re: No. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division). The Defendant Cities’ Police Consultant will please provide the court with a status report with respect to the following: 1V.B(3)(e), (f), and (g) pages 29 and 30 of the judgement. 2 – Update on New Hires for CCMO.
1- 3 (e) The CCMO has purchased, trained, and issued body cameras to all deputies for use while on duty. They have purchased a data storage system as well. They also purchased digital and audio recording equipment for a designated interview room, however this room has not been completed as of this report. The policy for this process has been completed and approved by the DOJ. CCMO staff have been trained on the policy for use and storage of data purposes.
2- 3(f) All of the initial training referred to in 3(f), to my knowledge, was completed on March 30th. The three new officers have watched the recorded trainings as part of their field training program.
3- 3(g) I have set up several meetings with the CCMO to help rebuild and develop a positive working relationship with both County Agency Sheriffs and staff. We did meet and have the process started, however, there is still a lot of work to be done in this area as we move forward trying to regain trust and confidence. Once a new Chief is hired, it will provide an opportunity to create new positive working relationships/partnerships. I will create the initial opportunities again for the new Chief, and encourage him to make it a priority moving forward.
I did the same with both County attorneys offices. Washington County Attorneys have been great to work with and have tried to do their part with the relationship building process. They have also delivered training to the CCMO staff. Mohave County Attorneys have been reluctant to step forward and come to CCMO to deliver training and/or have a meeting. I understand the difficulty behind this effort, however, I believe that in order to make it fair and consistent with the service they provide to the citizens and CCMO, at some point it will need to happen. I will continue to put forth the effort and feel it will be enhanced with the hiring of a new Chief. Hopefully some trust and confidence can be regained between the Mohave County Attorney’s Office and CCMO staff. I have had several good conversations with Matt Smith, the Mohave County Attorney, in reference to this effort and fully understand his concerns, based on the history between the two agencies.
I believe the circumstances will be much different and better for a new Chief to enhance these relationships moving forward.
The three deputies that were hired have completed the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training Police Academy. They graduated on April 14th, and have begun their field training program with the CCMO. They will be submitting paperwork in the near future to be certified in Arizona.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1158-2 Filed 05/24/18 Page 2 of 2
The CCMO is in the process of accepting applications for a new Sergeant and Chief position. The Sergeant position is new, in addition to the one they already have, and the Chief position is to replace the one that has left. If you need further clarification or have questions please contact me.

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 77
1

November 1, 2017 To: United States District Court For the District of Arizona

-FILED -RECEIVED
NOV 0 1 201

From: Roger Carter, Court Monitor

Re: November 2017 Monitoring Report for the cities of Colorado City, Arizona an Hildale, Utah

This report represents the first submittal to the Federal Courts ("Court") on the compliance of the cities of Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah ("Cities") to the Jud ement and Decree Granting Injunctive Relief ("Order'') signed by the Honorable H. Russel Holl nd, United States District Judge on April 17, 2007. As required by this Order, the Court Mo itor ("Monitor") is required to submit a report every ninety (90) days to the Court and Parties to the Order.
On August 3, 2017, Roger Carter was appointed by the Court to serve as theM the cities. From the issuing of the Order on April 17, 2017 to October 31, 2017, the Citi s have been required to comply with requirements of the Order. This report will provide the Co rt with an update on the Cities compliance with those Orders.
As this is the first report, an explanation of the outline will be provided. The rep rt will consist of a review of each of the specific Orders requiring the Cities compliance and ov rsight by the Monitor. Each section will identify the specific compliance requirement, provide status report on the Cities compliance with that Order and note any other information pertinent to the issue. These sections will correspond with the written Order of the Court.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 77 2
Fair Housing Injunction The Cities were found by the Court to have engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct
that violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and (b) and § 36171. In consideration of
these violations the Cities were required to comply with the following: Approval of the Subdivision Plat
Plaintiffs were required to file a subdivision plat with the Recorder's Office of Mohave County, Arizona within 60 days of Order.
A. The subdivision plat was recorded On September 26, 2017. In spite of some initial disagreement on the language of the recorded notes, the parties were able to agree on final language resulting in the recording of the plat and the completion of this Order.
Adoption of Building Department Policies and Procedures The Cities were required to develop and submit to the United States for its approval
policies and procedures relating to the handling of building permits and applications for associated licenses and certificates, including permit application process, plan review process, building inspections, assessment of fees, and the basis for denial or revocations.
A. These policies and code changes were submitted to the United States for approval. The Cities received approval on August 16, 2017.2 There is some uncertainty on whether these changes were formally accepted by the Colorado City or Hildale City/Town Councils. However, the communities are complying with the revised policies and changes.
1 Judgementand Decree Granting Injunctive Relief, No. 3:12-ev-8123-HRH, p. 31. 2 Exhibit A

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 3 of 77 3
B. As a part of the code and policy changes, the permit application was modified to require the signature of the owner or owner's agent or representative. 3 This application nd these practices have been put in place and have been verified by the Monitor.
C. All approved policies and procedures are available, upon request, in the Cities o ices. This has been verified by the Monitor.
D. To ensure ongoing compliance, enhance monitoring, and to create a strict and transparent process for the Monitor and applicants, procedures were put in plac for the processing of applications. This process includes: a. The requirement that all applications are to be dated and signed by the Cities upon receipt. b. The applicant is to receive copies of all signed and dated applications if t ere is a failure of the Cities to provide this the Monitor can be notified. Monitor information is attached to all applications. c. Each step of the permitting process is to be logged, by staff, in a system hat allows the Monitor to oversee the process and collect data on complianc issues.
4
d. The staff of the Cities has been trained in this process and has agreed to comply. E. There have been no changes to the policies, procedures or paperwork since the
approval by the United States on August 16, 2017. F. Monitoring of these permit processes includes records audits, interviews with sta , and
contact with applicants. 5
3 Exhibit 8 4 Exhibit C 5 Audits and interviews provided upon request

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 4 of 77
4
G. There has been one complaint filed regarding a delay in receiving a business license. The Monitor received the complaint and followed up with the complainant. The individual was not certain this was a discrimination issue but did not know why she was not receiving a business license. After investigation, the Monitor concluded that a business license was not issued because there had not been an application for a building permit before renovations were undertaken. A business license could not be given until such time that the building was deemed safe for occupancy. There was no violation of the Court Order; however, the Monitor requested that the City communicate with the complainant on the steps she would need to take to come into compliance with city codes. The Monitor requested the City provide this written communication within 14 days. 6
Amendment to Water Service Regulations The Cities were required to submit to the United States for its approval updated water
service access regulations. These new policies were to acknowledge that there would be no action based upon religious affiliation, to specify language on the transfer of a connection, and show proof of ownership. Once approved these new regulations were to be adopted by Cities elected bodies and be made available, upon request, to the public at the municipal offices.
A These policies and code changes were submitted to the United States for approval. The Cities received approval.7 These changes were formally accepted by Colorado City Council on September 11,2017, and Hildale Town Council on September 12,2017.8
B. New Utility Service Applications were developed outlining the requirements for transfer of connection, identification requirements, and ensuring equal and non-discriminatory
6 Exhibit D 7 Exhibit E 8 Exhibit F

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 5 of 77 5
treatment. 9 The Monitor has verified the use of implementation of the procedure and the use of this application. C. Since the approval by the United States, there have been no changes to the poli ies, procedures or paperwork. D. Similar monitoring procedures will be established for utility connections comparable to the building permit process but have not been completed as of the date of this r port. E. Monitoring of these applications includes records audit, interviews with staff, and contact with applicants. 10 Culinary Water Impact Fee The Cities were required, with the approval of other parties, to select an enginee to review the Culinary Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan & Impact Fee Analysis to determin if the maximum eligible impact fee was too high. This analysis would include conferral with th Cities and the United Effort Plan ("UEP"). If it were determined, by the engineer, that the maxi urn fee was excessive, the Cities would be required to lower the existing impact fee to the I recommended. A. Alpha Engineering was selected on July 12, 2017, as the engineering firm to con analysis. B. On October 5, 2017, the United States requested from the Court an expanded or er to the engineer or that a new Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan & Impact Fee Analy is be conducted. 11 The Cities responded on October 23, 2017. 12
9 Exhibit G 10 Audits and interviews provided upon request 11 Exhibit H 12 Exhibit I

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 6 of 77 6
C. The Monitor requested that the parties consider ordering a new Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan & Impact Fee Analysis on October 5, 2017. 13
D. The parties are waiting for further direction from the Court. E. To date, no additional changes to the water impact fee have been requested by the
Cities. Website and Public Notice
The Cities were to develop and maintain a website which identified the elected officials, appointed personnel, and department heads and listed their contact information. All notices and agendas of upcoming public meetings were to be posted to this site with 24-hour notice. Links were to be provided to connect the public with city codes, policies and regulations of the City and Marshall's office, water regulations, building permit information, utility connection, and transfer information, subdivision applications and public records request.
A. All elected and appointed officials, as well as department head information was posted to the website. Verified by Monitor.
B. 24-hour notice of all upcoming public meetings have been posted, as well as minutes from previous meetings. On-going verification by Monitor.
C. The following information has been added to the website for public access: a. Municipal codes b. Department policies and regulations c. Building Department policies and permit requirements d. Water connection requirements and regulations e. Subdivision applications and information f. Marshall's Office policies
13 Exhibit J

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 7 of 77 7
g. Public records request h. Contact information of the Monitor The Cities have complied with the requirements of this Order. Mandatory Education and Training Due to the violations of Constitutional rights as well as the Fair Housing Act, the ities' staff was required to receive training on the requirements of the First, Fourth, and Fourt Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the requirements of the Fair Housing Court Order. A. Fair Housing training was conducted by Cheri Horbacz of the Southwest Fair Ho Council on September 5, 2017. Those in attendance included city council mem ers, mayors, utility board members, city and town managers, all employees and offici Is who have duties related to planning, zoning, permitting, construction, occupancy of residential housing, employees who have responsibility for approving, initiating, r stopping water service, sewer service, waste-disposal service or other services. training lasted 3 hours, and a video of the training was created. The Monitor wa attendance at this training. A record verifying those individuals in attendance wa created. 14 B. Constitutional training, as well as separation of church and governmental policie , was conducted by Brock Belnap, Washington County Attorney on September 25, 2017. Those in attendance included city council members, mayors, utility board memb rs, city and town managers, all employees and officials who have duties related to planning, zoning, permitting, construction, occupancy of residential housing, employees w responsibility for approving, initiating, or stopping water service, sewer service,
14 Exhibit K

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 8 of 77 8
waste-disposal service or other services. The training lasted 3 hours, and a video of the training was created. The Monitor was in attendance at this training. A record verifying those individuals in attendance was created. 15 C. Training on the requirements of the injunction, to be performed by the Cities attorneys has not occurred to date. The Monitor has been informed that this is because the Marshall's office policies have not been completed. The attorneys will be requesting an extension of this requirement by the Court. D. The Monitor has received a list of all current employees, and as new employees are hired they will be required to view the video trainings. No new employees have been hired, since the initial training. Marshall's Office The Marshall's Office was found to have violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. As such, the Court ordered the hiring of a Police Consultant and Mentor. The Monitor will also ensure that there are no violations of Fair Housing requirements by this office, as outlined by the Court. 16 A. The Monitor informed the Marshall's Office on August 25, 2017, that they are required to notify the Monitor, within 24 hours, of any calls for service associated with housing, evictions, land use, building or utility issues. 17 The department has complied with this request, except for some delayed notifications. B. The Monitor uses these notifications to interview those individuals, who sought the services of the Marshall's Office, to determine how they felt they were treated and if they
15 Exhibit L 16 Exhibit M 17 Exhibit N

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 9 of 77 9
had any concerns with the level of service provided by this department. To date, there have been no noted concerns by these individuals nor that they have been treat d in a discriminatory manner. C. The Monitor is establishing a more thorough and random method of record revi determine the accuracy of officer-initiated notifications, this should be implemen ed in the next 90 day period. D. The Monitor has worked closely with the Police Consultant and Mentor and prov des the following summary report from them, regarding their perspective on the complia ce of the Marshall's Office.
a. Police Consultant - There has been effort and progress made to create a
stronger working relationship between the County Sheriff and Attorney 0 ices and the Marshall's Office. The Marshall's Office is to allow the Sheriff 0 ices to
handle eviction calls. Policy development is occurring with a) internal aff irs, b) department complaints, c) hiring and retention, d) policy manual review a d e) body cams. Recruiting of new officers has taken place with offers of em being extended to three individuals, these individuals are currently atten Academy for training. b. Mentor- The Mentor is working with the Chief. He feels that the Chief co ld initiate more outreach with the Mentor. The Chief responds to requests Mentor but doesn't take advantage of reaching back to the Mentor. The entor feels this could be due to the Chief currently being overwhelmed with poli y changes and other initial requirements. The Mentor will take a stronger position with the Chief in the next 90 day period with this concern.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 10 of 77 10
Monitor The Monitor is responsible for reviewing municipal decisions by the Cities implicating the
Fair Housing Act and overseeing implementation of all aspects and terms of the injunction. The Monitor has provided these services in the following way:
A. The Monitor reviews all agendas and meeting packets prior to posted public meetings. B. The Monitor has attended almost all City and Town Council meetings, including their
executive sessions. Monitor has attended Planning Commission meetings and Utility Board Meetings. C. The Monitor meets regularly with the Mayors and Managers, as well as the elected and appointed officials. Several interviews have been conducted with members of the staff. D. The Monitor has audited building, land use and utility records and provided process changes to the building permit process to ensure accountability of the staff, transparency for the public and oversight for the monitor. E. The Monitor has been involved in the modification of codes and ordinances. The Cities are currently establishing Land Use Design Standards. The Monitor has reviewed those codes and made recommendations for improved language that would reduce potential arbitrary decisions or give an opportunity for discriminatory behavior or claims. 18 All language change recommendations have been accepted by the Cities. F. The Monitor has requested that, as part of the land use changes, that Colorado City consider the establishment of a Board of Adjustments, separate from the City Council.19 This Board would be able to hear land use and other disputes and act in a clear quasi-judicial fashion allowing the Council to maintain their legislative functions. This
18 Exhibit 0 19 Exhibit P

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 11 of 77
11
Board should be composed of members that reflect the current character and s cial stratification of the community. The Commission and Council have agreed to th creation of this Board, although no appointments have been made yet. G. Any changes to ordinances, regulations, procedures or policies affecting housin or municipal services have been reviewed by the Monitor. H. The Monitor has required that his name, role and contact number be placed pro inently in the public space of the municipal offices as well as on the homepage of the Ci ies website. Furthermore, the Monitor has attended the UEP monthly housing meeting to introduce himself as the Court Monitor and encourage anyone who has a concer , associated with discriminatory behavior, to contact him. I. Any complaints, regarding discrimination, have been investigated by the Monitor. Summary
This report has been extensive due to the significant requirements imposed upon the Cities during this first reporting period, and it is anticipated that future reports will be mor concise and succinct. Overall, the Cities have made good effort to come into complianc with Order requirements. There have been disagreements, on occasion, between the parties which is to be expected. There have been circumstances in which the Cities have had a differ nee of opinion with the Monitor but in all cases, to-date, where a decision has been reached or direction was given, the Cities have complied.
As the Orders are put in place--which should be substantially completed in the ne t 90 day period--then the task will be monitoring for sustained, consistent, compliant performa ce by the Cities. Currently, the law has forced change upon the Cities, but successful impleme of these orders can only be considered successful when it doesn't happen because of fo e but

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 12 of 77 12
rather by willingness. This will continue to take time but would be the hope of the Monitor and the Court.
The ultimate success of the communities is within their own hands. Changes are taking place within these Cities legally, culturally and civically and their willingness to adapt and work with these changing factors will determine the future of this area. City officials will need to learn to work with a more heterogenous community, a potentially more diversified elected body and to be able to reach across the divide to organizations who have historically been "non-grata" within the community. Only when this becomes a natural function of these local governments will there be true success from these efforts and a confidence for a bright and hopeful future. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 13 of 77
13
Communication This report was provided electronically and in hardcopy to:

Honorable Judge H. Russel Holland 401 West Washington Street, Ste 130, SPC 1 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118

To plaintiff:

Sean Richard Keveney United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Washington, DC 20053

To Colorado City:

Jeffrey C. Matura Graif Barrett & Matura P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Ste. 500 Phoenix, AZ 85004

Town Manager Colorado City PO Box 70 Colorado City, AZ 86021

To Hildale City:

R. Blake Hamilton
Durham, Jones & Pinegar, P.C. 111 South Main Street, Ste. 2400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Mayor- Hildale City, Utah 320 East Newel Ave PO Box 840490 Hildale, UT 84784

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 14 of 77
Exhibit A

CCaassee33:1:122--ccvv--0088112233--HHRRHH DDooccuummeenntt11104977 FFilileedd 1018//0117//1177 PPaaggee 115ooff 77

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND

v. TOWN OF COLORADO CITY et al.
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division)

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS

The court is in receipt of the United States' notice1 that on August 16, 2017 the defendants' building department policies and procedures were approved.
The court understands that the revised building department policies and pro edures will be implemented and made available where municipal business is conducted w thin 30 days from August 16, 2017. See Judgment and Decree, Section V.C.(5).2

1Docket No. 1096. 2Docket No. 1053.

Order from Chambers - Building Department Policies and Procedures

- 1-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 16 of 77
Exhibit B

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 17 of 77

HILDALE CITY
320 E Newel Ave.* P.O. Box 490 * Hildale City, UT 84784 * 435-874-2323

BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
JOB ADDRESS

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER

SUBDIVISION

LOT NUMBER

For Official [ se On~y Received by
Date

OWNER PHONE NUMBER APPLICANT PHONE NUMBER REGISTRANT (ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER) PHONE NUMBER CONTRACTOR PHONE NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF WORK (USE, CLASS OF WORK, SPECIAL CONDITIONS)

MAIL ADDRESS FAX NUMBER
MAIL ADDRESS FAX NUMBER
MAIL ADDRESS FAX NUMBER
MAIL ADDRESS

APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS APPLICATION AND ASSOCIATED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THIS APPLICATION IS NOT ACCEPTED AS ACCOMPANYING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE SUBMITIED.

AND RESTRICTIONS SET F( RTH ON THIS COMPLETE UNTIL THE FEE t:> ARE PAID AND

THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.

180

DAYS,

OR

IF

C :>NSTRUCTION

OR

CLPI AHEOWERNRMSSETIATBRNYDUDOCC/OETEISRROTNNOIOFROYTDRITPNTHRAHAENETSCUPIEMHESAREGVFTOEOOVRREGMERIAAVNDNEICNAAEGNUDOTTHFHEOIXCSRAOTIMNTYYISPNTETERODOUVFTCHITWOIISLOOANART.PKEPWOLIIRCLLACTBAIENOCNCEOALMNTPDHLKEIENPDORWWOIVTTIHHSEIWOSNHASEMTOEHFETARONSBYPEOETTCRHIFUEIEERDASNHTDAETRCEEOIONRRROELRCOTNC.OATLA. LLALTV

ROVISIONS OF E GRANTING OF A REGULATING

SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
OCCUPANCY TYPE

DATE
OCCUPANT LOAD

VALUATION OF WORK

PERMIT FEE

PLAN CHECK FEE

PENALTY FEE

PERMIT NUMBER

DATE ISSUED

SIGNATURE OF OWNER
SIZE OF BUILDING (SQ. FT. PER FLOOR)

FEES PAID: Date:
ISSUED BY

Amount:

WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED ABOVE, THIS IS YOUR PERMIT

)ATE

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 18 of 77
HILDALE CITY
INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
During the construction of your building, the person doing the work is required by law to request periodic inspections. Inspections insure that the building is being constructed to the specifications in the approved plans and the Building Codes adopted by the Town, as well as documentation for future reference.
The following is a list of required inspections and can be used to keep track of the inspections completed or needed: 0 SETBACK AND FOOTING: After excavation, forming and steel is in place. 0 FOUNDATION: During placement of steel. 0 CONCRETE SLAB/UNDER FLOOR: After under floor plumbing and electrical is installed. Under-slab plumbing lines must have a water or air test on at the time of inspection. 0 BUILDING SEWER SERVICE: When the pipe is installed and still exposed. 0 BUILDING WATER SERVICE: When the pipe is installed and still exposed. 0 ELECTRICAL SERVICE: When service panel with disconnect and grounding is done. 0 FRAME INSPECTION: This may be a series of inspections. An inspection is needed before plumbing and electrical as well as after. All rough plumbing, electrical and mechanical should be left exposed. 0 ROUGH PLUMBING: A pressure test will need to be on the water and gas lines at the time of inspection. 0 ROUGH MECHANICAL: After installation of all ductwork.
0 ROUGH ELECTRICAL: After electrical wiring is complete.
0 MASONRY WALL: At each bond-beam prior to grout. 0 SHEETROCK: For all fire rated walls or shear walls. 0 GAS TANK/SERVICE LINES: After placement and lines exposed. 0 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: Such as wood stove and chimney installations.
0 FINAL INSPECTION: Before occupancy. Call Blue Stakes even if you are only digging inside your yard. Utah: 1-800-662-4111 or 8-1-1 Arizona: 1-800-782-5348

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 19 of 77
Exhibit C

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 20 of 77

Public Process

Building Permit Process Flow Chart Internal Process

lnitjal aooljqation ontjoe form

8uilding Oeparlment emails
applicantand~city
With !he fells.,
Applicant pays fee

Pa)'l!l!lnl of lee on!!~ 101!)1

I!J~pectjoo request ooJme fQrm
!nspedjon cQf!Jp!ele onljoe lorm

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 21 of 77
Exhibit D

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 22 of 77
October 27, 2017 To: Mayor Barlow, Manager Barlow, Andrew Barlow Re: Revive & Rejuvenate Spa complaint
On or about September 4, 2017, I was contacted by Melissa (Nikki) Knudsen, proprietor of Revive and Rejuvenate Spa. Ms. Knudsen complained that Hildale City had been unresponsive to her requests for a business license. Upon inquiry with the City, I determined that she had not been issued a business license because she failed to apply for a building permit for the renovations that had occurred.
Even though a building permit was not applied for by the proprietor, the City did have knowledge that renovations were occurring with the intent of opening a business. In light of this foreknowledge, I would request that the City-in a spirit of open communication, clear transparency and overt compliance with the Court Order-observe Section 5 C 3 (4)(d) of the Judgement and Decree Granting Injunctive Relief, which states that the Defendant Cities "... notify at least 14 days' advance, written notice to the property owner and permit applicant of the permit expiration or cancellation." Although there is no expired or canceled permit, efforts should be made by the city to notify the aggrieved party, in written form, the reasons for not issuing a business license and what steps need to be taken in order to come come into compliance with city rules and regulations for obtaining a building permit and/or business license.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 23 of 77
Furthermore, it would be in all parties best interest, even if city officials have limi ed their discussion with this business owner, due to conversations between legal counsels, to p ovide this written communication. I would request that this occur within the next fourteen (14) days.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns associated with this irection.
With regards, Roger Carter Court Monitor

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 24 of 77
Exhibit E

CCaassee33:1:122--ccvv--0088112233--HHRRHH DDooccuummeenntt11104972 FFilieledd1018//0013//1177 PPaaggee 215ooff 77

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND

v. TOWN OF COLORADO CITY et al.
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division)

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS

The court is in receipt of plaintiff's report1 regarding proposed water regul tions, and the defendants' further report2 on the status of water regulations and applicati n form. It appears from the latter filing that the requirements of Section V.C.(9), et seq., (amendments to water service regulations) provisions of the court's Judgment and Decree granting injunctive relief, have been accomplished. The court understands that pu suant to paragraph V.C.(11), the revised water service regulations will be implemented ithin 30 days from their approval (which appears to have been accomplished on or abou July 17, 2017).

1Docket No. 1078. 2Docket No. 1081.

Order from Chambers - Proposed Water Regulations

- 1-

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 26 of 77
Exhibit F

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 27 of 77
TOWN OF COLORADO CITY
MEETING NOTICE
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Colora o City Town Council and to the general public that the Town Council will hold a meeting open to the
public on Monday, September 11, 2017 at 7:00p.m. MDT at the Colorado City Tow Hall, 25 South Central Street, Colorado City, Arizona.
AGENDA:
Executive Session at 6:00p.m. MDT
1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Minutes of Previous Meeting(s) 4. Public Comments /Informational Summaries 5. Motion for Executive Session to be Held October 16, 2017 at 5:00p.m. MD for
Discussion and Consultation with Legal Counsel for Legal Advice in Accord nee with§ A.R.S. 38-431.03. (A) (3) & (4) (item 6 below) 6. Pending or Contemplated Litigation, Claims and Demands 7. Consider Contract with Court Appointed Fair Housing Monitor 8. First Reading Ordinance 2017-01 Amending the Town Code Title Ill, Chapt r 30, Section §30.050 Changing the Regular Council Meeting Time. 9. Consider Resolution Approving United States Department of Justice Minor Amendments to the Water Service Regulations that were Adopted in July of 2017 10. Consider Lease/Purchase of Fleet Vehicle to Replace Aging Vehicle 11. Consider Public Works Employee Salary Adjustments 12. Consider Adopting Policy for Merit Pay Plan for Police Officers 13. Consider Options for Retirement Benefits 14. Consider Adopting Travel Allowance Policy 15. Consider Hiring Part Time Administrative Assistant, Part Time Janitorial Em Ioyee, and Review Groundskeepers Wage 16. Consider Adopting Building Department Policies
Page I of2

NOTICE AND AGENDA Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 28 of 77

NOTICE IS MEETING

OHNERTEUBEYSDGAIVYENTHTEHAl2T1hTDHAE YHIOLDF ASLEEPTCEITMYBECRO,U2N0C17ILAWTILHLILHDOALLDEITCSITRYEGHUALLALR,

COUNCIL 320 EAST,

NEWEL AVENUE, WHICH MEETING SHALL BEGIN AT 3:30P.M.

THE AGENDA SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:

1. ROLL CALL.

2.

CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION AND TO HOLD A STRATEGY

SESSION TO DISCUSS SALES OR LEASE OF HILDALE CITY INDUSTRIAL PARK PROPERTY

3. DISCUSSION OF PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION, CLAIMS, AND DEMANDS

4. APPROVE OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING INCLUDING EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

MEETINGS

5. PUBLIC COMMENT (FINAL ACTION ON A TOPIC MAY NOT BETAKEN UCA 52-4-202(6)(C))

6.

CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE WATER SERVICE REGULATIONS THAT WERE ADOPTED IN

JULY OF 2017 7. CONSIDERATION TO APPLY FOR ELIGIBILITY OF FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY

PROGRAM

8. CONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT WITH COURT APPOINTED FAIR HOUSING MONITOR

9. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE AWARD OF HILDALE CITY REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

#2017-05-01 FOR A NEW IP VOICE AND DATA LOGGING RECORDER

10. 11.

CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE AWARD OF NEW REPEATER EQUIPMENT PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL FIRST AMENDED WASHINGTON COUNTY MUTUAL AID

AGREEMENT

12. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT BUILDING DEPARTMENT POLICIES

13. CONSIDER PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEE SALARY ADJUSTMENTS

14. REPORTS OF OFFICERS- BOARDS- COMMITTEES

15.

A. AIRPORT B. AZ STRIP LANDFILL C. BUILDING DEPARTMENT D. CORRESPONDENCE E. DISPATCH DEPARTMENT F. FIRE DEPARTMENT G. JUSTICE COURT
5:10PM MDT PUBLIC HEARING

TO

OPEN

AND

AMEND

H. I. J. K. L. M. N.
THE

UTILITY DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION POLICE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY MANAGER CITY TREASURER CITY RECORDER
FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET

16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION NO 2017-09-02 TO AMEND FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET

17. HILDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK

A. REPORT ON INDUSTRIAL LOT SALES AND LEASES B. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF SALE OF LOT 3AAND 15 AND SETTING DATE
FOR PUBLIC HEARING

18. FINANCIAL REPORT AND OUTSTANDING BILLS 19. BUSINESS LICENSES

20. APPROVE LARGE PURCHASES A. CONSIDERATION AND AUTHORIZATION TO COMPLETE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON UTAH AVENUE
21. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 22. ADJOURNMENT

Abrraeecegcgceeaoasnrmtsddteiaminnngidottoeidsnmaegetnsxiosebainctynisuvdttseieahvlnpoeeyeupsrlhvesdoosannsnriioenoa.tebnilflAyewissgthshetuihenceedhCsra,eiittsooymrnRaacoyroetecnoboscpeeertedrnnesfouirntrboagjcteto4nchn3etesg5itpo-do8utei7brac4althiit-coai2o,nn3ngst2o,e3fdoriuearsctpctelhueitesvoasespito2ultne4rhc,grhaaehlapeospaueddrr,aosvysvisacpalelpreiroofiorrororormtltotehoaetsthtrhheeeaeocCmtfmiiorteeyeneea.ttlaiinTtnptghgor.eo.mpCeeyIirtnt(yysd.)CivooCinduounauacnnlisylcimlnagaeMyee,dnemidbnaybgeimtrsesopmtemi,coiaonayr,l

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 29 of 77
Exhibit G

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 30 of 77

Utility Department Use Only
Account#
UTILITY SERVICES APPLICATION
HILDALE I COLORADO CITY UTILITY DEPARTMENTS 320 EAST NEWEL AVENUE, P.O. BOX 840490 HILDALE, UT 84784-0490 (435) 874-1160

DCabeuoetatlwoirTlreiAhateydapnoncpykulCoiscyitutaooynmauUtn,edftrio.ltrihItietaeipHsspaoilllyudsioranlpmgeriaIfvnoCialreogguleoetsirlttaiohtdyesoessCreevrirvetvyiyiccUoeesutsifblowiytryiApthDrroietzvhpoieadnriaHtnmSgiltedqrniauptlaseLlaiatInyndCduofitsiilllolnitrCoyatdosaroepcrocvCeriicaptetytieso.dUnTta(ishAliictSsyoLAmDCpp)epl.pleWiatceratemtuiwnoetennillticssto.hameHCefioelydenosaturlaaearcesIt

paid. accoPmlepaasneyrienvgiethwisthfeorimnf,oprmleaatsieonrepqaucekset totnheataatctchoemUptailnitiyesOthffisicaepoprliccaaltlio(n43fo5r)m8.7I4f-t1h1e6re0.is

not

an

information

packet

Applicant Information: (PLEASE PRJNT)

AI(PfeprBspounlismciaankneintsgsNa,paBpmliucaesti:ionn)es_LsasN_t, am_e_:--_--_--_--_-F-ir_s-t,-_--_--_--_--_--_--_-M-id_-dl-e_-In-iti_aBl usB(MiniuresttshbseDT18aaytxers:IoD_ld -or_-ol-d/e_-r -to_-sig-/n_ -co-n_ -tra-ct_-) ----

Phone: (_J _ _ -

Second Phone: L_) __ - ____

Personal Phone

Business Phone

Driver's License:
State

SSN: - - -
License Number (Copy Required)

Employer:

Phone: (_J _ _ - _ __

Additional Occupant Name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone: (_J _ _ - ____

Email Address: -------------------------------

Service Address Information:

Upon receiVmg building

Requested

Service

Street Address

Apt# or Lot#

pennits, utility services, business licenses, or land uses applications, city officials are

Address

City

State

Zip

required to sign, date and provide a copy ofthe application

Mailing

P.O. Box or Route#

to the applicant. In the event you

Address

are refused a copy of this

City

State

Zip

stamped and initialed document,

please contact the Court

Other Service Address Contact Information:

Monitor, Roger Carter (435)

For use in the case of a utility emergency where you cannot be contacted.

Two Contacts NOT Dwelling at the Requested Service Address:

1. Name:

Relationship:

Phone: L_) _ _ - _ _ __

Address:

City: ----------------- State:

Zip: - - - -

2. Name: Address:

Relationship: ______ Phone: L_) _ _ - _ _ __

City: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State:

Zip: _ __

1 of 4

Utility Application Revised 10-31-17

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 31 of 77

Requested Services:
D Gas
D Water/Wastewater/Garbage Dumpster(s) (qty) _ Can(s) (qty) __
Requested Connect Date: _ _!_ _!_ __
Customer Responsibility:
By signing this contract, the Applicant agrees to pay the associated fees and costs and to pay monthly for services rendered and abide by regulations established by Hildale and/or Colorado City. Charges for service will be made at the established rates for the class of service applicable to the applicant. Should payment not be received, the applicant will be responsible for all attorney's fees, court costs, and filing fees, including charges and commissions that may be assessed by any collection agency retained to pursue collection of the balance owing, which may be as much as 50% of the principle balance owing. The applicant agrees to pay a 5% late charge for all charges not paid on the due date and I% per month for any amount due beyond one month. The applicant further agrees to maintain and keep safe all pipeline facilities that are on the customer side of the city meter at the named address.
Applicant's Signature: ___________
Date of Application: _ _!_ _!_ __
Hildale/Colorado City Utility Departments are committed to serving all customers without discrimination. Utility services shall not be denied on basis of religion, race, color, national origin or ethnicity, gender, or any other basis protected under the Fair Housing Act.

OFFICE USE ONL'Y Application Fee ..................... $---+----
FOR NEW SERVICE ONLY: This Application is valid upon receipt of Application Fee. Full payment of remaining fees and osts is required within sixty (60) days; otherwise, Application expires.
Deposit .................................. $--+---Water Connection Fees ......... $--+---Water Impact Fee .................. $ - - + - - Water Construction Cost ....... $ - - + - - Sewer Connection Fees ......... $ - - - + - - Sewer Impact Fee .................. $---+--Sewer Construction Cost....... $ - - + - - Gas Connection Fees............. $---+--Gas Construction Cost .......... $ - - + - - Total Due.............................. $--+---
Paid Date: _____ Receipt#-+----
D Copy of Driver's License Received D Sen•ice Connection Explained D Customer Provided witl1 Copy of Application
Application Received by ----+---Utility Approval: Date of Approval: _ _/_ _/_-+-Customer Approval of Constructi< n: Signature:___________+ - - - Approval for Construction Date: ~I' 1--:------:--
To be signed after review by Customer and Utility Pers[mnel to determine Construction Costs- Within sixty (60) days of Applica ion Fee being paid.

Utility Department Use Only

Account

Number--------------------
D Service Order Created D Landfill Papers Completed Processed by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D a t e - - - - - - - -
Notes_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~------

Lot 4

Utility Application Revised 1 ~-31-17

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 32 of 77

Transfer of Utility Connection without Persmission of Existing Customer:

In order to transfer an new Customer, where

existing utility connection the existing Customer has

from the name of an existing Customer to the name of not applied to transfer service to the new Customer's

a

name, the new Customer need only:

a. Attest under penalty that the new Customer

of perjury, by signing owns the property for

and submitting which he/she is

the application for utility services, seeking a utility connection or has

the owner's permission to occupy or obtain utility services at the property; and

bpa.grorSepheeomrwtye.nptSr,oulocehafsodef,oocowur mnoetehrnsethraitdpiooocnfumtmhaeeynpttrasokhpeoewtrhtyien,gfpoeprmremrmoisifssiasoidonenteobdyooctrchauenpoyow,concreurpotabontacoiycncauugtprileyietoymrsesenertev,kirceuentstialailttythe services.

Auotrpilhpitalyiscsatehnretvhoicewersne,betryh'saattptteehrsemtsAisupsnipodlniecrtaopnetoncoacwlutnypsyotohf epr eoprbrjotuapriyenrbutyytilfsioitgyrnwsienhrgivciahcnehdsesa/suthbtehmeisitpstrienoegpkeitnhrtgiysa.auptpilliictyatcioonnnfeocrtion

Applicant's Signature: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date of Application: _ _/_ _/_ __

Utility Department Use Only
Proof of ownership of property, permission to occupy or obtain utility services provided: Y I N

Description of documentation provided (e.g., deed, lease, occupancy agreement, letter of permission from owner):

Name of City official reviewing application:--------- Date: __/__/_ _

3 of4

Utility Application Revised 10-31-17

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 33 of 77

UTILITIES SERVICE
Customer Understanding Agreement
HILDALE I COLORADO CITY UTILITIES 320 EAST NEWEL AVENUE, P.O. BOX 840490
HILDALE, UT 84784-0490 (435) 874-1160
Dear Applicant, This form is to verify that you have had explained to your understanding the existing service o services
for which you have applied. Hildale/Colorado City Utilities wants you to understand the co tract for services that you are entering into. Please take the time to read the information packet and ask any uestions you may have concerning the utility services you have applied for. Be aware that this informatio may be updated or changed at any time without notice.
__Uniform Utility Billing Ordinance.............................................. age 2 __Deposit and Reimbursement Information ................................. age 4
General Rates and Fees Information.......................................... age 5 Water Rates and Fees Information............................................. age 6 Water Service Customer Information........................................ age 8 Wastewater Rates and Fees Information ................................... age 9 __Wastewater Service Customer Information ............................ p ge 10 __Gas Rates and Fees Information ............................................... p ge 11 __Gas Service Customer Information .......................................... p ge 12 __Solid Waste Rates and Fees Information ................................. p ge 13 __Solid Waste Service Customer Information............................. p ge 14
Certification:
I certify that I have had explained to my understanding and/or have received an information packet which e plains to my understanding the services which I have applied for. Ifthere is any question regarding my account, I k ow I can call the office at (435) 874-1160.

Customer:

Signature

Printed Name

Date

Hildale/Colorado services shall not Housing Act.

City Utilities is committed to serving all customers in the be denied on basis ofreligion, race, color, national origin or

Hildale/Colorado City area without dis ethnicity, gender, or any other basis prot

rimination. Utility cted under the Fair

4 of4

Utility Application Revised 1 -31-17

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 34 of 77
Exhibit H

CCaassee33:1:122-c-cvv-0-088112233--HHRRHH DDooccuummeenntt11114278 FFilieledd1110/0/015/1/177 PPaaggee315ooff977

1

Steven H. Rosenbaum (NY Bar #1901958) Sameena Shina Majeed (DC Bar# 491725)

2 R. Tamar Hagler (CA Bar #189441)

Paul Killebrew (LA Bar #32176)

3 Eric W. Treene (NY Bar #2568343)

4 Sean R. Keveney (TX Bar #24033862) Matthew J. Donnelly (IL Bar #6281308)

5 Emily M. Savner (NY Bar #5214358)

6

United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

7 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

8 Phone:

(202) 353-4081

9 Facsimile: (202) 353-8154 E-mail: emily .savner@usdoj .gov

10

11 Attorneys for the United States

12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTH

13

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

14

15 United States,

16
17 v.

Plaintiff,

No. 3:12cv8123-HRH

18

19 Town of Colorado City, Arizona, et al.,

20

Defendants.

UNITED STATES' REQUE T FOR CLARIFICATION REGAR lNG THE CULINARYWATERIMPA TFEE
REPORT

21

22

The United States seeks clarification from the Court regarding the Cui nary Water

23 Impact Fee provisions ofthe Court's Injunction, ECF No. 1053, specifically t e scope of

the Updated Impact Fee Report ordered by the Court.
24

25

26

27

28

1

CaCsaes3e:132:1-c2v--c0v8-0182132-H3-RHHRHDoDcoucmuemnet n1t1141728FilFeidle1d11/001/0/511717PaPgaeg3e62ooff797

I. BACKGROUND
1

2

One of the myriad issues on which the Parties presented evidence at the October

3 2016 remedies hearing was the Cities' culinary water impact fee. Based on evidence

4 introduced by the United States, the Court found that "it became apparent to the court that

5 there is reason to believe that the current impact fee of$12,000 may be unnecessarily

6 high." Injunction at 15. Specifically, the United States introduced evidence, including

7 through one of the Sunrise Engineering engineers who authored the 2014 Impact Fee

8 Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ("2014 Impact Fee Report"), that there were

9 several specific issues with the report that may have unnecessarily raised the impact fee

1o amount: (1) the failure to segregate existing water connections into residential and

11 commercial connections, Shaffer Hr'g Tr. 915:17-921:4; (2) the failure to account for the

12 no- or low-cost water rights the UEP Trust had offered the Cities, id. at 921 :24-924:5; and

13 (3) the failure to account for the existing pipeline that the UEP Trust has into Water

14 Canyon, the use of which by the Cities, would reduce the price of obtaining additional

15 water from that source, id. at 930:3-933:6, 936:5-937:7. Additionally, evidence admitted

16 at the remedies hearing established that City officials vehemently opposed to working

17 with the UEP Trust for religious reasons provided significant input into the 2014 Impact

18 Fee Report. See Injunction at 18 (finding that "city officials subscribed to the beliefs of

19 and were subject to pressure from the FLDS Church," "personally opposed the non-FLDS

20 administration of the UEP Trust," and "sought and received direction regarding their

21 official duties from the FLDS Church"). In a footnote in a discussion section of its

22 Judgment and Decree, the Court mentioned two of the above-mentioned issues- the non-

23 segregation of residential and commercial connections and the failure to account for UEP-

24 provided water rights; the Court did not specifically mention the evidence adduced

25 regarding the Water Canyon pipeline or the editorial input of biased City officials more

26 generally. See id. at 15 n.l6 ("Footnote 16").

27

The Court ordered that an engineer be appointed to "perform a review" of the 2014

28 Impact Fee Report and to "provide the parties and the court with an updated Culinary

2

CCaassee33::1122--ccvv--0088112233--HHRRHH DDooccuummeenntt11114278 FFilieledd 1110//0015//1177 PPaaggee 337oof f 77

1 Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Analysis ('Updated Impac Fee 2 Report')." !d. at 37. In the normal course, impact fee reports are updated a proximately 3 every three to five years. See, e.g., Defendants' Joint Closing Argument Re arding 4 Injunctive Relief at 24, ECF No. 1023 (referencing engineer's recommendat on that report 5 be updated every three to five years); 2014 Impact Fee Report at 45, Remed Hr'g Ex. 6 3360 (anticipating updated impact fee reports at five-year intervals); Ariz. R v. Stat. § 97 463.05(D)(3) (providing that municipalities "shall update the land use assu tions and 8 infrastructure improvements plan at least every five years."). Thus, in drafti g the 9 proposed order that formed the basis for the Court's Injunction, and in interp eting the 10 Court's Injunction, the United States anticipated that the "Updated Impacted Fee Report" 11 would be one that both satisfied the Cities' obligations to regularly update th ir report by 12 newly assessing water usage and need, as well as corrected the specific probl ms 13 identified at the remedies hearing and the underlying concern of potentially iased input 14 by City officials.

15

The Parties solicited proposals from engineers. Defendants proposed o the Court a

16 candidate to whom the United States objected because the scope ofhis propo al, at an

17 estimated cost of $16,568, was limited to updating the 2014 Impact Fee Rep rt based on

18 information obtained only in the two areas the Court referenced in Footnote 16. See

19 Alpha Engineering Proposal at 5-6, ECF No. 1073-1; US Resp. to Defendant 'Jt. Notice

20 Re. Proposed Water Engineer, ECF No. 1075. In contrast, the engineers pro osed by the

21 United States both estimated $25,000-$30,000 to complete the project, includ"ng

22 providing a wholly updated impact fee report. See US Report of Proposed W ter

23 Engineers at 2-3, ECF No. 1071. The Court approved the proposal ofDefen ants' chosen

24 engineer and his proposed scope of work. Order: Appointment of Water Eng·neer at 2,

25 ECF No. 1076.

26

The United States did not fully understand the limited nature of the Cites' intended

27 scope of work for the Engineer, however, until counsel for the United States r cently

28 spoke with the Engineer and reviewed his contract. Based on this additional i formation,

3

CaCseas3e:132:1-c2v--c0v8-0182132-H3-RHHRHDoDcoucmuemnet n1t1141728FilFeidle1d11/001/0/157/17PaPgaeg3e84ooff797

1 it is clear that the Engineer relied primarily on Footnote 16 to craft his proposal and did 2 not review any evidence from the remedies hearing fleshing out the entirety of the United 3 States' concerns with the 2014 Impact Fee Report. The Cities' contract with the Engineer 4 makes clear that the Engineer's work will be limited to reviewing water usage data and the 5 availability of water rights and correcting the 2014 Impact Fee Report accordingly:

6

2.1 Design Fee. For all design engineering services as outlined in Article 1,

7

"Design Engineering Scope of Work", the ENGINEER shall be compensated the fixed fee of: Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Sixty

8

Eight Dollars, $16,568.00. The lump sum fee has been broken down as

follows:
9

10
11
12

Review Existing Impact Fee Analysis

Review of Water Rights

Review of Usage Data

Analyze Findmgs

UEP Trust Assets Report & Update

to

Impact

Fee

Analysis

Total

$ 6,627.20 $ 1,656.80 $ 3,313.60 $ 824.40 $ 4,142.00 $16,568.00

13 Engineering Services Agreement for Engineering Services Between the Town of Colorado

14 City and Alpha Engineering Company at 2-3 (Att. A). The Engineer confirmed to

15 Counsel for the United States that under this contract he will not be looking at current data

16 but will instead review data from the time period studied for the 2014 Impact Fee Report.

17

Counsel for Defendant Colorado City has stated that Colorado City objects to

18 having the Engineer prepare a report that would be based on "current circumstances" as

19 that would require more time and would increase the cost of the work. See Email from

20 Jeffrey Matura to Emily Savner (Sept. 22, 2017) (Att. B).

21

II. ARGUMENT

22

Given the unanticipated disagreement regarding the scope of the term "update" in

23 the Court's Injunction, the United States respectfully requests clarification of the Court's

24 expectations regarding the Engineer's deliverables. The United States maintains that a

25 more robust update to the 2014 Impact Fee Report than what is described in the

26 Engineer's contract is appropriate and that the Court should order the Cities to contract

27 with the Engineer to perform a full-scale impact fee reassessment that would be based on

28

4

CCaassee33:1:122-c-cvv-0-088112233-H-HRRHH DDooccuummeennt t11114278 FFilieledd1110/0/015/1/177 PPaaggee359 ooff 977

1 current data and land use assumptions and addresses all issues with the 201 Impact Fee 2 Report raised during this litigation. Alternatively, the Court should order th t the 3 Engineer's scope of work be minimally expanded to include examination o the Water 4 Canyon pipeline costs, the other area of concern specifically exposed by tes imony at the 5 remedies hearing, and clarifY its intention that the Court-ordered Updated I pact Fee 6 Report is not meant to satisfY any applicable state-law obligations the Cities may have to 7 regularly update their impact fee report with new data.

8

First, in order to fully remedy the Cities' discriminatory conduct, the

9 review of the 2014 Impact Fee report should not be limited to the two probl ms identified 10 in Footnote 16 but should comprehensively address all issues raised during t e remedy 11 phase of this litigation, including reassessing costs of obtaining water from t e Water 12 Canyon pipeline owned by the UEP Trust. As with the UEP's water rights, t e UEP's 13 Water Canyon pipeline could provide additional water capacity to the Cities

14 significantly lower cost than that projected in the 2014 Impact Fee Report.

15 the independent, court-appointed Engineer should evaluate the data and assu ptions used 16 in the 2014 Impact Fee Report more generally to ensure that other areas ofp tential bias 17 in the City-provided data or City-edited analyses are not unnecessarily inflati

18 fee amount.

19

Second, the Updated Impact Fee report should be based on current cir umstances,

20 data, and land use and infrastructure assumptions. The Injunction's provisio s regarding

21 the Updated Impact Fee Report are prospective and envision that the new Re ort's

22 analysis will require the Cities to set a new and lower maximum allowable im act fee for

23 residents going forward should the report find justification for a lower fee tha exists

24 today. See Injunction at 38 ("Should the Updated Impact Fee Report recomm nd a

25 maximum eligible impact fee that is lower than the Defendant Cities' current mpact fee,

26 the Defendant Cities shall revise their existing impact fee accordingly within 5 days.").

27 The 2014 Impact Fee Report is now three years old and relied on water usage ata from

28 2009 to 2013. See 2014 Impact Fee Report at 5. Circumstances have likely c

5

CaCsaese3:31:21-2c-vc-v0-80182132-3H-RHHRH DoDcoucmumenetn1t1141728FiFleilded111/00/10/51/717 PaPgaege406 ooff 797

1 the ground that could create significant implications for the impact fee analysis. See 2 generally D. Darger Hr'g Tr. 861:10-19 ("Every five years that impact fee will be 3 reevaluated. There could be a lot of factors change. There could be different land use 4 assumptions, population projections. We could redefine the capital improvement in a 5 certain area and say, you know what, our population projections are low or high, we need 6 to-- you know, we can delay this improvement or delay water rights and different 7 things."); Email from David Darger to Brent Gardner (Sept. 19, 2017) (Att. C) ("I am sure 8 that many parameters have changed since 2014 that may need to be considered and most 9 likely will affect the impact fee (which is reviewed every three to five years automatically 10 anyway.)"). As specific examples, the Cities have purchased water rights from non-UEP 11 sources since the 2014 Impact Fee Report was prepared and City officials have recently 12 suggested that population projections have declined. See Att. C (also expressing a 13 continued unwillingness on the part of the Cities to meet with UEP Trust representatives

14 to discuss the transfer or sale of water resources).

15

The Court-mandated Updated Impact Fee Report should take into account these

16 developments and all other factors that may result in significant changes to the impact fee

17 calculations. The Cities' water policies have now twice proven to have been enacted with

18 discriminatory intent. To avoid a repeat of the Cities' past efforts to discriminate, the

19 preparation ofthe new report should be fully transparent and the report should be

20 comprehensive. The Updated Impact Fee Report, which may prescribe a new, multi-

21 thousand-dollar impact fee for residents seeking new culinary water connections, should

22 be based on the best and most up-to-date information available, including revised

23 estimates of water usage, projected needs, and additional capacity required.

24

In opposing any Court-ordered update to the 2014 Impact Fee Report, the Cities

25 relied, in part, on the fact that the 20 14 Impact Fee Report was due to be updated soon

26 anyway: "Mr. Shaffer also recommends that Colorado City and Hildale update their

27 impact fee every three to five years, which means the next update will occur between 2017

28 and 2019." Defendants' Jt. Closing Argument Regarding Injunctive Relief at 24, ECF No.

6

CCaassee33:1:122-c-cvv-0-088112233-H-HRRHH DDooccuummeennt t11114278 FFilieledd1110/0/015/1/177 PPaaggee471ooff977

1 1023. It is likely most cost effective for the Cities to have this general upda e performed 2 now, as part of the Court-mandated Updated Impact Fee Report. The Unite States is 3 concerned that the Cities may be seeking to avoid state-mandated update ob igations, or, 4 worse yet, continue their discriminatory practices, by not performing a full- cale update as 5 part of this process to determine if effective entrance fees to the Cities could be lowered 6 with a lower impact fee. If, however, the Court did not intend its Injunction to require a 7 full-scale reassessment of the impact fee that would satisfY any updating obi gations that 8 may exist under state law, and does not find it appropriate to do so now, the nited States 9 requests that the Court so clarity.

10

III. CONCLUSION

11

For the foregoing reasons, the United States seeks clarification of the

12 expectations regarding the scope of the Updated Impact Fee Report and resp ctfully 13 requests that the Court order the Cities to contract with the Engineer to perfo a full14 scale impact fee reassessment that (1) would be based on current data and la d use

15 assumptions and (2) takes into account all issues with the 2014 Impact Fee R port raised

16 during this litigation. Alternatively, the Court should (1) order that the Engi eer's scope

17 of work be minimally expanded to reexamine the costs of access to water fro Water

18 Canyon and (2) clarity its intention that the Court-ordered Updated Impact F e Report is

19

not meant to satisfY any applicable state-law obligations the Cities may have o regularly update their impact fee report with new data.

20

21 22 Respectfully submitted this 5th day of October 2017,

23

24

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief

25

Special Litigation Section

26

SAMEENA SHINA MAJEE

27

Chief Housing and Civil Enforcem nt Section

28

7

CaCsaes3e:132:1-c2v-c-0v8-0182132-3H-RHHRHDoDcoucmuemnetn1t1141728FilFeidled111/001/0/157/17PaPgaege428ooff797

R. TAMARHAGLER

1

PAUL KILLEBREW

2

Deputy Chiefs

3

ERIC W. TREENE

Special Counsel
4

5

s/ Emily M Savner

SEAN R. KEVENEY

6

MATTHEW J. DONNELLY

7

EMILY M. SAVNER Attorneys

8

United States Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

9

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

10

Washington, DC 20530

Phone:

(202)353-4081

11

Facsimile: (202) 353-8154

12

E-mail: emily.savner@usdoj.gov

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

CCaassee33:1:122-c-cvv-0-088112233-H-HRRHH DDooccuummeennt t11114278 FFilieledd1110/0/015/1/177 PPaaggee493 ooff 977

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 3

I certifY that on October 5, 2017, I caused a copy of the foregoing Requestfor Clarification Regarding the Culinary Water Impact Fee Repo the Court's ECF system to the following:

nited States' t to be sent via

4

Jeffrey C. Matura

5

Melissa J. England

6

GraifBarrett & Matura, P.C.

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500

7

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

8

Attorneys for Defendant Town ofColorado City

9

R. Blake Hamilton

Ashley M. Gregson

10

Durham Jones & Pinegar

11

Ill East Broadway, Suite 900

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

12

Attorneys for Defendants City ofHildale, and Twin City Water Aut ority

13

14

sl Emil M Savner

EMILY M. SAVNER

15

Attorney for the United States

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 44 of 77
Exhibit I

CCaassee33::1122--ccvv--0088112233--HHRRHH DDooccuummeenntt11114373 FFiileledd 1110//0213//1177 PPaaggee 415oof f 77

1 Jeffrey C. Matura, State Bar No. 019893 Melissa J. England, State Bar No. 022783
2 GraifBarrett & Matura, P.C. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Telephone: (602) 792-5700
4 Facsimile: (602) 792-5710 jmatura@gbmlawpc.com
5 mengland@gbmlawpc.com

6 Attorneys for Defendant Town of Colorado City, 7 Arizona

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10

United States of America,

Case No. CV-12-8123-PCT HRH

11

12 13 14

Plaintiff,

DEFENDANTS' RESPO SE TO THE

v.

UNITED STATES' REQ EST FOR CLARIFICATION REG RDING THE

Town of Colorado City, Arizona; City of Hildale, Utah; Twin City Power; and Twin

CULINARY WATER IM REPORT

ACT FEE

City Water Authority, Inc.,

15 Defendants.

16

17

Pursuant to this Court's prior order [Doc. 1129], defendants Colo ado City and

18 Hildale City (collectively, "the Defendants") submit the following respons to the United

19 States' Motion for Clarification Regarding the Culinary Water Impact Fee Report [Doc.

20 1128].

21

The United States seeks to clarify the scope of the engineer's review of the impact

22 fee report that Sunrise Engineering completed in December 2014. The part"es previously

23 submitted their positions regarding the scope of work. See Defendants' Jo nt Notice Re:

24 Proposed Water Engineer [Doc. 1070] and the United States' Report of Pr posed Water

25 Engineers [Doc. 1071]. This Court accepted the Defendants' proposal See Order

26 Appointing Water Engineer [Doc. 1076]. The United States now claims t at it "did not

27 fully understand the limited nature of the Cities' intended scope of work for the Engineer,

28 however, until counsel for the United States recently spoke with the ngineer and

CaCseas3e:132:1-c2v--c0v8-0182132-H3-RHHRHDoDcoucmuemnet n1t1141733FilFedile1d11/001/2/137/17PaPgaeg4e62oof f777

1 reviewed his contract." See Motion for Clarification [Doc. 1128], at p. 3, lines 26 - 28. 2 The United States' apparent confusion is not a basis to modify this Court's injunction 3 because the scope of work outlined in the injunction is clear and the engineer who this 4 Court approved has already agreed to a price to complete the scope of work, entered into a 5 contract with the Defendants, and is just about done with its work. Changing courses at 6 this late date to require the engineer to complete an entirely new impact fee report will 7 violate Arizona and Utah law, delay the process by about a year, and financially burden

8 the Defendants.

9 I. THIS COURT'S INJUNCTION WAS CLEAR REGARDING THE SCOPE

10

OF THE ENGINEER'S WORK. Because this Court has already considered this issue and rejected the United States'

11 proposed scope of work, the first place to start is with the language from this Court's

12

injunction.

13

This Court issued its injunction on April 18, 2017. See Judgment and Decree

14

[Doc. 1053]. As part of that injunction, this Court ordered the following:

15

• The court shall appoint, using the procedures set forth below, a

16

licensed engineer or engineering firm ("Engineer") to perform a

17

review of the Defendants Cities' culinary water impact fee.

18

• Within 90 days of the court's appointment of the Engineer, the

19

Engineer shall perform a review of the Culinary Water Impact

20

Fee Facilities Plan & Impact Fee Analysis for the Defendants

21

Cities conducted by Sunrise Engineering and, after consultation

22

with representatives of the UEP Trust, including the Trust's

23

retained Engineer, the Defendants Cities, and any other person or

24

entity the Engineer deems necessary, provide the parties and the

25

court with an updated Culinary Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan

26

and Impact Fee Analysis ("Updated Impact Fee Report"). 1

27

28 1 See Judgment and Decree [Doc. 1053], at p. 37, ~~ 14, 16 (emphasis added).

2

CCaassee33::1122--ccvv--0088112233--HHRRHH DDooccuummeenntt 11114373 FFiilleedd 1110//0213//1177 PPaaggee 437oof f 77

1 This Court's language is clear- the Engineer is to "review" and "updat " the Culinary 2 Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Analysis that Sunri e Engineering 3 completed. To conduct this review and update, the Engineer ca consult with 4 representatives from the UEP Trust, the Defendants, and anyone else the 5 necessary.

6

The Defendants proposed Brent Gardner from Alpha Engi

7 Defendants' Joint Notice Re: Proposed Water Engineer [Doc. 1070]. The United States'

8 objected because it did not believe Alpha Engineering understood the scop of work. See

9 United States' Response to Defendants' Joint Notice Re: Proposed Water ngineer [Doc.

10 1075], at p. 2, lines 13- 16. After considering the parties' positions and t e information

11 submitted on various proposed engineers, this Court appointed Alpha ngineering to

12 complete the work identified in the injunction. See Order Appointing ater Engineer

13 [Doc. 1076]. This Court also rejected the United States' concerns regardi

14 work and stated the following:

15

The plaintiff worries that Mr. Gardner's team may not fl lly

16

understand the scope of the work required of Alpha Enginee ng. However, Defendant Cities' joint response, Exhibit A, includ s a

17

detailed "scope of work" description, including the cou 's

18

expectation that the UEP Trust will be brought into the impact fee analysis. 2

19 In a footnote to this language, this Court stated that "[i]f the UEP Trust in fact has water

20 rights that could be dedicated to Short Creek culinary water service, that ould plainly

21 affect the culinary water impact fee analysis for the benefit of everyone."

22 5.

23

Alpha Engineering has contacted, met with, and spoken on several o casions to the

24 UEP Trust Board, its Executive Director, and its engineer to request informa ion regarding

25 water rights that it offered to dedicate to the Defendants when Sunris Engineering

26 completed its analysis. 3 As of the date of filing this response, the UEP Tru t has still not 27 2 See Order Appointing Water Engineer [Doc. 1076], at pp. 1-2. 28 3 See October 9, 2017 e-mail Correspondence from Brent Gardner, attached s Exhibit 1.
3

CaCseas3e:132:-1c2v--c0v8-0182132-H3R-HHRHDoDcuomcuemnet n1t1141733FileFdile1d11/001/2/137/17PaPgaeg4e84oof f777

1 provided the requested information. 4 This Court may recall that the Defendants presented 2 evidence during the October 2016 evidentiary hearing that the UEP Trust never offered 3 any free water rights, despite what representatives from the UEP Trust testified to under 4 oath. 5 Now, the United States seeks to change the scope of Alpha Engineering's work, 5 even though the UEP Trust never actually offered free water rights as part of Sunrise 6 Engineering's impact fee report, rather than have Alpha Engineering conclude that 7 Sunrise Engineering's report regarding water rights was based upon full and accurate

8 information.

9

This Court's scope of work is clear. No modification or clarification is necessary.

10 II.
11
12 13

MODIFYING THE SCOPE OF WORK TO REQUIRE A NEW IMPACT FEE REPORT IGNORES ARIZONA AND UTAH LAW, WILL FINANCIALLY PREJUDICE THE DEFENDANTS, AND IS UNNECESSARY.
The United States' proposal to require Alpha Engineering to complete an entirely

14 new impact fee report ignores Arizona and Utah law, would delay the process by about a

15 year, and would substantially increase the costs to the Defendants. It is also unnecessary

16 because the Defendants will obtain a new impact fee report by July 2020, which is five

17 years after they adopted Sunrise Engineering's report.

18

Preparing an impact fee report is not a quick or easy task. At a minimum, Arizona

19 law requires a municipality to take the following steps after a draft impact fee report is

20 completed and before an impact fee is implemented: (a) provide 60-days' advance notice

21 setting a public hearing on proposed land use assumptions and infrastructure

22 improvements and then hold the hearing; (b) adopt all land use assumptions and

23 infrastructure improvements within 30 to 60 days after the public hearing; (c) notice a

24 second public hearing to consider public input on the impact fee analysis at least 30 days

25 prior to the hearing; (d) conduct a public hearing on the proposed impact fees at least 30

26 4 Alpha Engineering has another meeting scheduled with the UEP Trust for this Thursday, 27 October 26, 2017. 28 5 See Hearing Testimony of David Darger, at p. 833, lines 7- 21, attached as Exhibit 2.
4

CCaassee 33::1122--ccvv--0088112233--HHRRHH DDooccuummeenntt 11114373 FFiilleed 1110//0213//1177 PPaaggee 459oof f 77

1 days before the scheduled date of the adoption of the fee; (e) approve or disapprove the

2 imposition of the fee within 30 to 60 days after the date of the public earing; and (f) 3 delay the effective date of any impact fee for at least 75 days after its £ rmal adoption.

4 A.R.S. § 9-463.05(C). Even if this Court considers the new impact £ e report as an

5 amendment to Sunrise Engineering's report, as opposed to a new report, A izona law still

6 requires a municipality to hold the same hearings and provide the same public notice.

7 A.R.S. § 9-463.05(D). Utah law has nearly identical requirements. See e.., Utah Code

8 Annotated §§ ll-36a-501, 502, 503, and 504. This law prohibits a mu icipality from

9 quickly implementing an impact fee because the public is entitled to notice and the ability 10 to comment. It is not a quick process that the United States can for e upon Alpha

11 Engineering or the Defendants. For example, Sunrise Engineering beg n its work in

12 March 2014, but due to all the required steps, the current impact fee was n t adopted until 13 July 2015. The United States' proposal ignores the required steps the D fendants must

14 follow and the delays necessitated with each step.

15

The United States' proposal also ignores the substantial costs that t e Defendants

16 will incur to obtain a new impact fee report. Sunrise Engineering charged $42,600.00 to 17 complete its report. 6 In contrast, Alpha Engineering has agreed to review d update that

18 report for $16,568.00. Alpha Engineering is just about done with its wor

19 earned its contract price. To also obtain a new impact fee report at this time will therefore

20 cost the Defendants another $42,000.00.

21

Finally, Arizona law requires a municipality to "update the land us assumptions

22 and infrastructure improvements plan at least every five years. The initial fi e year period

23 begins on the day the infrastructure improvements plan is adopted." A.R.S. § 924 463.05(D)(3). The Defendants adopted the land use assumptions and infrastructure

25 improvements plan as part of the impact fee adoption process on Febru ry 18, 2015; 26 therefore, they will obtain an updated land use assumptions and infrastru ture facilities

27

28 6 See Sunrise Engineering Proposal, attached as Exhibit 3.

5

CaCseas3e:132:-1c2v--c0v8-0182132-H3-RHHRHDoDcuomcuemnet n1t1141733FileFdile1d11/001/2/137/17PaPgaeg5e06oof f777

1 plan by February 2020 and adopt any subsequent impact fee by July 2020. Trying to rush 2 through the process now is unnecessary, and the United States' suggestion that the 3 Defendants want to avoid their obligations is entirely without merit.

4 III. CONCLUSION.

5

Alpha Engineering is moving forward to complete the scope of work identified in

6 this Court's injunction. That scope of work is clear and involves a "review" and "update"

7 of Sunrise Engineering's impact fee report. The United States' proposal to change that

8 scope of work to require an entirely new impact fee report ignores Arizona and Utah law,

9 would delay the process significantly, and would financially burden the Defendants.

10

For these reasons, the Defendants request that this Court deny the United States'

11 proposal and instead reaffirm the language regarding the culinary water impact fee already

12 contained within its injunction.

13

Dated on October 23, 2017.

14

GRAIF BARRETT & MATURA, P.C.

15

16

By: /s/ Jeffrey C. Matura

Jeffrey C. Matura

17

Melissa J. England

18

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004

19

Attorneys for Defendant Town of

Colorado City, Arizona

20

21

DURHAM JONES & PINEGAR, P.C.

22

23

By: /s/ R. Blake Hamilton

24

R. Blake Hamilton

Ashley M. Gregson

25

111 South Main Street, Suite 2400

26

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Attorneys for Defendants City of Hildale,

27

Utah, Twin City Water Authority, and

28

Twin City Power

6

CCaassee33:1:122--ccvv--0088112233--HHRRHH DDooccuummeenntt11114373 FFilieledd 1110//0213//1177 PPaaggee 571ooff 77

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2

3 4

tfroarnesgmoiiInttgahledoroefcNbuyomticecenerttoitffoyEtlthehecattrCoonlenicrkfO'islcintOogfbfteoircteh2eu3s,foinl2lg0o1wt7hi,negICCMeMl/e/EcECtCroFFnirsceyagslitlseytmrat

ansmitted for filing ts:

the and

R. Tamar Hagler 5 Eric W. Treene

6 Sean R. Keveney Matthew J. Donnelly

7 Emily M. Savner

8

Sharon I. Brett Katherine F. Towt

9 United States Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division 10 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

11 Washington, D.C. 20530 Attorneys for Plaintiff United State of America
12

13

R. Blake Hamilton Ashley M. Gregson

14 Durham Jones & Pinegar

15

Ill South Main Street, Suite 2400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

16 Attorneys for Defendants City of Hildale, Utah, Twin City Water Authority, and Twin City Power
17

18 Is/ Alicia McMaster

19

4826-3110-1522

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

CCasaese3:31:21-2c-vc-v0-80182132-3H-HRRHH DDocoucmumenetn1t 1114373-F1ileFdile1d1/0110//1273/1P7 agPeag5e2 o1fo7f76
EXHIBIT 1

CCaassee33::1122--ccvv--0088112233--HHRRHH DDooccuummeenntt11113437-1 FiFleilded11/00/12/31/717 PPagaege532 oof 767

Jeff Matura

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc: Subject:

David Darger <Manager@tocc.us> Monday, October 9, 2017 9:31AM Brent Gardner; Justin Barlow
Mayor; Jared Madsen; Glen E. Carnahan; Raymond Barlow RE: Culinary Water Impact Fee Review- Engineering Contract

Thanks for the update -
'[)tUlft ~, Town Manager Town ofColorado City
P.O. Box 70 Colorado City, AZ 86021 Phone: 928·875-2646 Fax: 928-875-2778
mana,ger@tocc. us

From: Brent Gardner (mailto:brentgardner@alphaengineerlng.com]

Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 10:29 AM

To: David Darger <Manager@tocc.us>; Justin Barlow <justin@hildalecity.com>

Cc: Mayor <Mayor@tocc.us>; Jared Madsen <jaredmadsen@alphaenglneering.com>; Glen <glencarnahan@alphaengineering.com>; Raymond Barlow <manager@hildaleclty.com>

E.

Carnahan

Subject: RE: Culinary Water Impact Fee Review- Engineering Contract

Thanks for getting this to us. We what they would sell their water

are in the process of trying for and also separating the

to get a response from the UEP Tru commercial and industrial usage.

t

as

far

as

Brent E. Gardner, PE
a ~lie~~ brentqordner@olphaengineerinq.cQm
43 South 100 East, Suite 100 • StGeorge, Utah 84770 T: 435.628.6500 • F: 435.628.6553 • alphaengineerlng.com

From: David Darger [mailto:Manager@tocc.us] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 10:18 AM <TCgoc:l:eMBncraeaynrontraG<haMarnda@nyeoarr@l<pbhtoraecencn.tgugisan>red;enJreainrre@gd.caoMlpmah>da;seeRnngayi<nmjeaoerenriddnmgB.aacdorslmoew>n@;<JmaulasptnihnaagBeenargr@lionhweield<rajiunlesgct.icintoy@m.ch>oi;mldG>alleenciEty. .Ccoamrn>ahan Subject: RE: Culinary Water Impact Fee Review- Engineering Contract
Brent,
The signed agreement is attached.
Thank you,
1

CCasaese3:31:21-2c-vc-v0-801821233-H-HRRHH DDocoucmumenetn1t 1141733-F1ileFdil1e1d/0110//1273/1P7 agPeag5e4 3ofo7f76
EXHIBIT 2

CCaassee 33::1122--ccvv--0088112233--HHRRHH DDooccuummeenntt11113437-1 FiFleilded111/00/12/31/717 PaPgaege554 oof 767

833
,.-----------David Darger - Direct Examination------+---,

1

The only thing I can think that could be construed to

2 that is there was talk of some fire protection. But the Town

3 has recently gone through and adopted -- or had our engineers

4 do a water master plan that has identified any deficiencie~,

5 and we have some capital improvement plans to pursue that. So 10:01:07 6 that's kind of a moot issue in my mind.

7 Q. Did you also hear Mr. Renstrom's testimony earlier thi~

8 week that the UEP had made an offer for free water rights o 9 the communities? Did you hear that testimony?

10 A. I heard that testimony. And that's the first time in z~y

10:01:27

11 entire life that I've heard that, was when Mr. Renstrom sa d in

12 this court. When we had our impact fee hearing, he never

13 offered that. Mr. Wisan never offered that.

14

I was in a Utility Board meeting when the Utility

15 Board was considering purchasing some water rights, and this

10:01:48

16 was after negotiations and offers. And Mr. Jeff Barlow fro~

17 the UEP came in and he said, well, we -- we have water rights.

18 And it was like, well, if you're going to spend money, why

19 don't you spend it with us?

20

But at no time have I ever heard anyone say we have

21 free anything.

10:02:12

22 Q. Has it been your understanding, sir, that in order for he

23 towns to obtain the water rights that the UEP Trust current y

24 owns, it would either have to be paid for or some other

25 conditions provided to the UEP Trust?

10:02:30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CCasaese3:31:21-2c-vc-v0-80182132-3H-HRRHH DDocoucmumenetn1t 1141733-F1ileFdil1ed1/0110//1273/1P7agPea5g6e o5fo7f76
EXHIBIT 3

CCaassee33:1:122--ccvv--0088112233--HHRRHH DDooccuummeenntt11113437-1 FFileiledd1110/0/213/1/177 PPaaggee576 oof 767

SUNRISE

i\farch 28, 2014

Justin Barlow, Utilities Manager Hildale City
P.O. Box 840490 Hildale, UT 84784-0490

RE: Proposal for Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Analysis
Dear .Mr. Barlow,

CrSfaeebuoeaonlsvowroiernsoa.eaudbTloEdlheCnengpietilypena.udneTreptfrhooioinrssagecpm,upoeIllinyafncnatt.shroyiiwsstwheppeawrlteoeeialpnrlstoreiiemsrdeaqplutsroieiorsrevvsetauiocmdbehmepeanrirrotteesvantihncdoieesefetdtopthehrdebeoopcfCtooohisrmtayUfblutiwaftnuohietrrdheanewgadnrnagoAtiweinrmreithzespo.ryainsIncattgteimrsfeseesqoeruuovirrirfeceuceHmnosidmeldfneomartrslsee.tantChndediatiytpnioargnontjdhebcaattths

eferenced d upon a he impact Town of

cnLmooaalstlstetbceyetreiopannrleaewsndeneerivdnpigcrt.oeosvI,'rimdaenaeacddthtttahoacenhCwiinomagltopeararaccrdotiogpfheyCtesoitrrfyeetcsaheoaamstrccmloehptetwinendrhgaiwctaihinothdnw.receBovhysiastvieolelenitmastleriarennaatddthiyencygcoomutmhsmoepdseleentttieostdeta)mo,ppstehlly(eihmfyfiiodnrraot•CegeDtohBlooGsgeicgtaarlsaknasntsa

for water at would ysis, GIS 2 0.

You indicated that the utility board asked to see if we could be ready for a public hearing in 30 days. mAirrnee.aqnqdJauuuleiiyrrnseaeiedvsm,ate(ieolwnsastbecseloenwonttiodfoauultllhctydhteefanrInpoomurmImpbmlaasipccclaltryfcaFottrcreFeheaqe,tLeusleeaoasawntstaht~ laiy1sns0diissd,taqhtyhuesei9tipee0nraaoprcncllraieeeayspsscstacrwteroaeleteqircocuaoanitrmenefddpocrlsoectamothepemcduaoiubntmlletiIocp)m.lhhepetaAeaavctrititnthnhgFegaetttIheompeFoappdiaalncoactinptlittthaFitveeehsaeepilPlaFiamlbanalcpneiwaliiacsotnituetdflshedeeIP..n..p,e.ad.c.tt.o~F~be"ee"

The following notices will need to be made in the process (See attached Utah Code document). 1. Notice of intent to prepare an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (11-36a-501) 2. Notice to adopt an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (11-36a-502) 3. Notice of preparation of an Impact Fee Analysis (11-36a-503) 4. Notice of intent to adopt Impact Fee Enactment (11-36a-504)

sfwtUooeantrtsfdietnerheeglreqsautmunapeynasadstcetikoendirmg.cpkWftlohoairefnttfhpmwaornuieetdstehstatiiahnnceggmurwunorpereiteednhdataytcmetochdaeueslrcetCoesratrisatttypefadlfhananasdncsdohstrecogdhfaauehtchdlaeieuvl.irletieIinefawsgnthpieneilmacfConapnriaitmnychatawptvflioeaoeeucnealditnWtohlipeskolureraepkctpeaoRr,oepewrlrtjeeoutahcssrteeeeetcpodcoloragebnnmaa.itszeaeedndytaohnnenedcsthbecseehsgeamdirnuyold·es·ti

n't what ps for us ed scope
ediately

We appreciate working with you and the City on this and other projects. questions.

Please call me at (435) 652-8450 with any

D':rur··'*"E'· L!!- PrincipalEngineer P.E.

P.IHIId&le Cuy\Wtr\La-Justin Barlow IFFP Proposal 3.28.14 .docx • TEL 435

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 58 of 77
Exhibit J

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 59 of 77
October 5, 2017
To: Department of Justice, Colorado City, Arizona, Hildale, Utah Re: United States Request for Clarification Regarding the Culinary Impact Fee Re ort
As the court appointed Monitor for the Cities of Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah, I respectfully seek to comment on the request by the United States for clarification and reassessment (or minimal expansion) of the 2014 Impact Fee Report ("Report"), as file October 5, 2017.
Tasked with the responsibility of monitoring the policies and practices of the communities to ensure they are not discriminatory, and with a desire to assist the parties in creating positive community structure and environment, I would support the recommendation for he undertaking of a new Capital Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Study ("Plan"). Simply mod fying the existing, controversial Report runs the risk of being too confusing, too subjective, too fragmented, and producing results that still do not generate the needed confidence by al parties. The requirement of a new Plan would essentially push the "reset" button on this issue allowing for a fresh start and direction into the future.
From the perspective of the Monitor position as well as my professional experien e, a new capital facilities plan and impact fee study would accomplish the following:
1. Avoid the challenges of aligning historical facts or circumstances (realized or not) with current data and circumstances, thereby creating a convoluted result.
2. Address current and future issues raised by several parties, including growth and capital facility needs. The plan should be forward looking and not backwards driven.
3. Create fair and equal treatment of all parties including the communities, property wners, water purveyors, etc.
4. Address all of the concerns outlined in the Court Order issued on April 18, 2017.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 60 of 77
5. Create an instrument that all parties could potentially have confidence in. 6. Be more cost effective over the next few years. 7. And, meet the state requirements as the communities capital facilities plan and impact
fee schedule. I respectfully provide these comments from my perspective and as a point of discussion only. I would be happy to discuss this further, if appropriate. Thank you, Roger Carter Court Monitor

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 61 of 77
Exhibit K

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 62 of 77 TOWN OF COLORADO CITY
P. 0. Box 70 "' C:nlor~ulo Ch)·, Arla<mo 1!6021
rhon.. & TUUI ~H!:U·U'iS·261f:. •••••,.., 4J:!U..875,.27'18
Hildale City & Town of Colorado City
FAIR HOUSING TRAINING
US District Court mandatory education and training workshop Provided by Southwest Fair Housing Council
By signature below I verify, under penalty of perjury, that I attended the Mandatory Education and Training on the
requirements of the Fair Housing Act required by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Injunctive Relieve paragraph (24)-(28) Dated 04/18/2017 by Judge H. Russel Holland U.S. District Judge.
Date: C(- 5-/ Z
Signature
2 3 4
8 9
10 Jose
11 12

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 63 of 77 TOWN OF COLORADO CI
P. 0. Unx 70 • Colnrud" City. Arl~onA 86021
PJumr 41 TUU: t)2U·07$•2t,.U!I + ··.-"'~ IJ2'04115·277U
Hildale Ci & Town of Colorado Ci
FAIR HOUSING TRAINING
US District Court mandatory education and training workshop Provided by Southwest Fair Housing Council
By signature below I verify, under penalty of perjury, that I attended the Mandatory Education and Tra ning on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act required by the United States District Court for the District of Ari ona, Injunctive Relieve paragraph (24)-(28) Dated 04/18/2017 by Judge H. Russel Holland U.S. District Judge.
Date: 9/5"/.pDI 7 I
Please Print Legibly 1
5 6
7 8
9
10 ll

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 64 of 77
TOWN OF COLORADO CITY P. 0. Uo" iO • C..lor..do City, Arizona 1160::!1 Mumr A TOO-: 9;!1\...07.5·2616-+ Foa'-! '9~fl.S75·2-:18
Hildale City & Town of Colorado City
FAIR HOUSING TRAINING
US District Court mandatory education and training workshop Provided by Southwest Fair Housing Council
By signature below I verify, under penalty of perjury, that I attended the Mandatory Education and Training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act required by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Injunctive Relieve paragraph (24)-(28) Dated 04/18/2017 by Judge H. Russel Holland U.S. District Judge.
Date: qIs/201 1"
5 6
14 15

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 65 of 77
Exhibit L

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 66 of 77
TOWN OF COLORADO CITY
* P. 0. Box 70 .,. Colorado City, Arizona 1!6021 Phon.. & TDI>: 928·875-261-6 }"u:x: 920-875-2778
Hildale City & Town of Colorado City
CONSTITUTIONAL TRAINING
US District Court mandatory education and training workshop 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments Provided by
Washington County Attorneys' Office
By signature below I verify, under penalty of perjury, that I attended the Mandatory Education and Training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act required by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Injunctive Relieve paragraph (24)- (28) Dated 04/18/2017 by Judge H. Russel Holland U.S. District Judge.
Date: 9-;;L 5 - I7
Please Print Legibly
9 10
11 12 13 14 15 LI -o\1\~

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 67 of 77 TOWN OF"* COLORADO CI P. 0. Box 70 Colorado City, Arizona 86021 * Phonr & TDD: 928·875·2616 Fox: 92H-875-2778

Hildale Ci & To n of Colorad
CONSTITUTIONAL TRAINING
US District Court mandatory education and training workshop 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments
Provided by Washington County Attorneys' Office

By signature below I verify, under penalty of perjury, that I attended the Mandatory Education and Training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act required by the United States District Court for the District of Ariz na, Injunctive Relieve paragraph (24)- (28) Dated 04/18/2017 by Judge H. Russel Holland U.S. District Judge.

Date: ------------------------------

Please Print Legibly

Signature

1

3 4 5

Gar-1ow J "·
11 12
14 15

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 68 of 77

CITY

TOWN OF COLORADO CITY * P. 0. Box 70 Colorado Cit)\ Arizona 86021
Phone&. TDD: + 928~875-261-6 Fax: 928-875-2778

Hildale City & Town of Colorado City
CONSTITUTIONAL TRAINING
US District Court mandatory education and training workshop tst, 4th, and 14th Amendments
Provided by Washington County Attorneys' Office

By signature below I verify, under penalty of perjury, that I attended the Mandatory Education and Training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act required by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Injunctive Relieve paragraph (24)- (28) Dated 04/18/2017 by Judge H. Russel Holland U.S. District Judge.
Date: q ,_ .2fr :;lt) 17

Please Print Legibly 1

Signature

2

3

4

5

6

7
Jt

()1N"l

8 Jtltt

9

10

~J~i
~0 J'r,

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 69 of 77
Exhibit M

CaCseas3e:132:-1c2v--c0v8-102831-2H3R-HHRHDoDcuomcuemnte1n1t 417054FileFdile1d10/041/1/187/17PaPgaeg7e01oof f727

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs.

)

)

TOWN OF COLORADO CITY, ARIZONA, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

No. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division)

ORDER Modifications to Proposed Injunctive Relief By notice and request for comment of March 15, 2017, 1 the court solicited and has received under seal comments from the parties aimed at simplifying and facilitating implementation of injunctive relief in this case. The court has received and considered the parties' proposals.2 The court's judgment and decree granting injunctive relief filed concurrent herewith reflects the court's decisions with respect to the parties' suggestions for modification. The court has incorporated into its injunction those suggestions of the parties which the court deems useful for purposes of simplifying and/or facilitating implementation of the court's injunction.

1Docket No. 1032.

2DocketNos. 1042,1043,1050, and 1051.

Order- Modifications to Proposed Injunctive Relief

- 1-

CCaassee 33::1122--ccvv--008123-HRH DDooccuummeenntt 11104574 FFiilleedd 1014//0118//1177 PPaaggee 721oof f 77
The parties' discussion of the role of a court-appointed, Fair Housing Act as regards policing services deserves some further comment. As circulated to the the court's proposed injunction would have limited the Monitor to non-policing h using matters. Although the parties could not have known this, that restriction on the au hority of the Monitor would be inconsistent with the court's findings with respect to viol tion of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by the Defendant Ci ies' CCM0.3 Those findings demonstrate that there was an intersection between CC policing and access to housing. CCMO officers' treatment ofnon-FLDS church as regards the enforcement of occupancy agreements issued by the UEP Trust viol ted the Equal Protection Clause. As a consequence, and for purposes of enforcement oft e Fair Housing Act, the Monitor's duties must include oversight of policing services rela ed to access to housing.4 The Monitor's duties are not limited to non-law enforcement a pects in terms of the injunction.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 18th day of April, 2017.
/s/ H. Russel Holland United States District Judge

3Judgment and Decree, § IV.B(12), (15), and(l7). 4See Judgment and Decree,§ V.C(3l)(d).

Order- Modifications to Proposed Injunctive Relief

-2 -

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 72 of 77
Exhibit N

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 73 of 77
August 25, 2017
To: Chief Jerry Darger, Colorado City Marshal's Office, Colorado City Town Officials, Hi dale Town Officials.
Cc: Chief Jim Keith, Chief Robert Flowers.
From: Roger Carter, Court Monitor
Re: Calls for Police Service
Please notify the Court Monitor, Roger Carter, in the event that there is any call for polic service that involves land use, housing, licensing, or utility services, within 24 hours oft e incident. These type of calls would include, among other items: utility disputes, land us issue (lot line dispute, trespass, building permit, building inspection, zoning or subdivision issue, etc.), evictions, business license issue or any related item. The Incident Report and/or other documentation, may be requested. If you have any questions, please notify the Court onitor
Roger Carter (435) 319-0840 rrcivicus@gmail.com

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 74 of 77
Exhibit 0

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 75 of 77

M Gmail

Roger Carter <rrciv cus@gmail.com>

Changes to the land use code

Roger Carter <rrcivicus@gmail.com> To: Kent Page <kentP@tocc.us>
Kent,

Fri, Sep 1 , 2017 at 9:45PM

I hope this email finds you well. I am not sure if you have made your decision on acceptance of the job o er but I thought I would send these to you anyway.

Suggested language revisions:
• 154.04 (H): I am not sure what this section means "if the conditions of approval have not been sati fied ... • 154.08 (C): If the City has adopted the APWA standards let's let that be the dominating standard a d avoid the
arbitrary decisionmaking by the Council • 154.18 (H): We need to change this language and eliminate the arbitrary nature of additional ease
discretion of the Council • 154.22 (1 ): Let's add some additional language after "as determined by the Town/City Engineer" an base it upon
some standard with which he can base his determination on. • 154.25 (B): Why is the developer submitting a letter to the City from the City about its ability to con ect to water
services. One of the discriminatory issues the City had in the past was indicating to some that ther wasn't sufficient water. My preference would be that this section is eliminated completely unless a better xplanation can be given to me. • 154.33 (A): Can we add language that indicates under what circumstances the Fire Marshall would accept (or possibly deny, whichever approach is easier) these drives, i.e. "in accordance with the established ire codes." • I am assuming you are the P&Z Administrator. We may need to add language that bases the discr tion of the P&Z Administrator to some established standards • Who is the Hearing Officer designated in the cities? • In some part of the ordinance (help me to know where is the most appropriate place) we need to a language about the cities compliance with all requirements associated with the Fair Housing Act. • Even though it is not my preference, it is within the discretion of the Council(s) to have one docume t instead of a document for each of the communities, but great effort needs to be made in making sure that the d cument is clear to the public on which rules they are being governed by. There also needs to be great care given i making sure that there is no conflict in the language of the ordinance with one state statutes compared to the ot er state. I know that Utah and Arizona statutes can differ on exactions, development fees for instance. Here re a few sections that could be confusing: 154.06 (A) (B), 154.07, 154.22 (A)1, 154.23 (B)3, 154.30 (C)
Those were the primary concerns I saw and would look forward to your perspective on how we might strengthen these sections.

Thanks for all that you do.

Roger Carter Court Monitor

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 76 of 77
Exhibit P

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1147 Filed 11/01/17 Page 77 of 77
October 16, 2017 To: Mayor Allred, Manager Darger, Town Council Re: Appeals Board
I would formally request that the Colorado City Council ("Council") consider the c eation of an Board of Adjustment ("Board"), as established under A.R.S. §§ 9-462.06, to hear I nd use appeals that might arise in accordance with §153.005 of the Colorado City, Arizona, Mu icipal Code ("Code"). This Board should consist of no less than five and no more than seven members. In the creation of this Board, efforts should be made to appoint members tha our representative of the social stratification of the community. The Council may also consid r using this Board in lieu of a Hearing Officer as outlined in the Code. 1
Currently the Colorado City, Arizona Town Council is designated as the Board of Adjustments. 2 However, by appointing a separate Board to hear land use appeals the C ty will realize the following benefits:
1. A separate quasi-judicial body will be designated to hear land use appeals there y allowing the Town Council to function fully in their legislative role.
2. There will be a clear separation of legislative and appellate land use issues. 3. A socially stratified Board can represent the changing demographics of the com 4. Through the appointment of a diversified Board a strong message of fairness an court
compliance will be demonstrated. I am happy to have further discussion regarding this request and express my appreciation for this consideration.
1 § 153.005(8) 2 § 153.005(A)

 
 935 F.3d 804 (2019)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
TOWN OF COLORADO CITY, Arizona; Twin City Water Authority, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 17-16472.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 18, 2019 San Francisco, California. Filed August 26, 2019.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; D.C. No. 3:12-cv08123-HRH, H. Russel Holland, District Judge, Presiding.
Jeffrey C. Matura (argued) and Melissa England, Barrett & Matura P.C., Scottsdale, Arizona; R. Blake Hamilton, Durham Jones & Pinegar P.C., Salt Lake City, Utah; for Defendants-Appellants.
Christine A. Monta (argued) and Thomas E. Chandler, Attorneys; John M. Gore, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Appellate Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges, and BARBARA M. G. LYNN,[*] District Judge.
805*805 OPINION
M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
When the United States suspected the Town of Colorado City, Arizona (Colorado City) and Hildale City, Utah (collectively, the Towns) of engaging in a pattern or 806*806 practice of violating the constitutional rights of residents who were not members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS or the Church), it sued the Towns pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14141).[1] After a 44-day trial, a jury returned an advisory verdict finding the Towns liable. The district court handed down a judgment holding that the Towns violated § 12601, and granted injunctive relief against the Towns.
Colorado City[2] appeals the district court's decision on three grounds, all of which fail. The district court correctly interpreted § 12601 when it concluded that the statute does not require an official municipal policy of violating constitutional rights in order for the United States to prevail. Colorado City's arguments about the district court's factual findings, even if they are correct, do not entitle it to relief because the district court's judgment is supported

on other grounds. The district court did not err in admitting several statements that Colorado City contends were hearsay. We affirm the district court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Straddling the Utah and Arizona border, the Short Creek Community is a religious settlement composed of the Towns. Most residents are FLDS members and follow the teachings of Warren Jeffs, whom they sustain as a prophet and leader of the Church. Since becoming the head of the Church in 2002, Jeffs has promulgated a strict set of rules for FLDS members, such as prohibitions on: vacations, toys, attendance at public schools, and displays of affection between husbands and wives.
The United States brought a civil action against the Towns and their municipal utility providers, Twin City Water Authority and Twin City Power, alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination against non-FLDS residents. The essential allegation of the United States was that the Towns functioned as an arm of the Church and conspired with FLDS leaders to use the Towns' municipal resources to advance Church interests. The complaint stated a claim against the Towns pursuant to § 12601 for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because § 12601 does not provide a right to a jury trial, the parties agreed that a jury would render only an advisory verdict.
At trial, the United States argued that FLDS leaders selected the Towns' leaders and members of the Colorado City Marshal's Office (Marshals), which served as the police department for the Towns. The United States offered testimony that the FLDS "ran the [Towns'] government" and that the Towns' government "was a part of the [C]hurch." It also offered evidence demonstrating that FLDS leaders instructed local government officials on how to perform their jobs in a way that advanced the Church's interests. Marshals, for example, ignored violations of the law—such as underage marriage, unlicensed drug distribution, and food stamp fraud—by FLDS members.
The Marshal's Office worked closely with FLDS leaders. Marshals helped 807*807 FLDS leaders evade service of process by the FBI, and ran computer checks of license plates of unfamiliar cars, when asked to do so by FLDS leaders. Cooperation between the Church and the Towns even extended to sharing tangible resources. For example, the Marshal's Office provided equipment such as tasers and nightvision binoculars to Church Security, the FLDS's private security force.
The Marshal's Office also helped Jeffs after he became a fugitive. Less than three years after Jeffs became head of the Church, the United States secured a warrant for his arrest on charges of sexual misconduct with children. The FBI sought the help of the Marshal's Office to locate Jeffs, but the Marshals did not cooperate; instead, they hindered the FBI's investigation and helped Jeffs hide for over a year. The Marshals also provided Jeffs with financial assistance and information on the activities of federal law enforcement to help him

evade capture. The Marshals even helped destroy evidence of the crimes for which Jeffs was accused by burglarizing a former FLDS member's business.
The United States also presented evidence that members of the Marshal's Office discriminated against non-FLDS residents. It contended that the Marshals failed to provide effective police protection to residents who were not FLDS members. One non-FLDS resident testified, for example, that a Marshal drove to his home, walked out of his car, and "just came over and grabbed my arm and [ ]* bent it up around my back." Although the resident explained that he had a legal right to occupy the property and presented an occupancy agreement, he was charged with trespassing.
The jury returned an advisory verdict finding the Towns liable under § 12601. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court issued a judgment holding the Towns liable under § 12601 for engaging in a pattern or practice of violating the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of their residents. The court determined that the Marshal's Office "fostered excessive government entanglement with religion" in an effort to "endors[e], favor[ ]*, or promot[e] the FLDS Church at the expense of non-FLDS residents." The court also concluded that members of the Marshal's Office "selectively enforce[ed] the law based upon religion" and arrested several residents who were not FLDS members without probable cause. The district court ordered injunctive relief requiring the Towns to, among other things, work with a court-appointed monitor to institute national guidelines for constitutional policing.
Although the Towns appealed the district court's finding of liability under § 12601, Hildale City has since withdrawn from this appeal. Accordingly, we address only Colorado City's arguments.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND JURISDICTION
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Whether the district court correctly interpreted 34 U.S.C. § 12601 is a legal question that we review de novo. GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1204 (9th Cir. 2000). We review the court's factual findings for clear error. United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763, 815 (9th Cir. 2015). We review de novo the court's interpretation of the hearsay rule, but review the court's admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Morales, 720 F.3d 1194, 1199 (9th Cir. 2013).
ANALYSIS
I. 34 U.S.C. § 12601
The principal dispute in this case concerns the proper interpretation of 34 U.S.C. § 12601. That statute prohibits

808*808 any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, [from engaging] in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency ... that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Colorado City argues that the district court erred by construing the statute as imposing liability on governments for patterns of constitutional violations committed by their officers and agents. It asserts that § 12601 requires the United States to demonstrate that the Towns "instituted an official municipal policy" of violating residents' constitutional rights. The United States, on the other hand, contends that the statute "imposes liability on municipalities for patterns of constitutional violations [that] their law enforcement officers commit, without requiring an additional showing that the municipality's policy or custom caused those violations." This issue— whether § 12601 imposes respondeat superior liability[3]—is one of first impression in our circuit. Cf. United States v. County. of Maricopa, 889 F.3d 648, 653 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding it unnecessary to decide "whether the language of § 12601 imposes liability on the basis of general agency principles").
Colorado City relies on the premise that, by including "pattern or practice" in § 12601, Congress used "language with a well-defined meaning [ ]* developed under [Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)] for municipal liability." That contention, however, confuses the relationship between general liability rules in civil rights statutes and the Supreme Court's decision in Monell.
"[T]he general rule regarding actions under civil rights statutes is that respondeat superior applies." Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 566 (9th Cir. 1988). In Monell, the Court carved out an exception to this general rule by holding that a municipality may not be held liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the actions of its subordinates. Instead, to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that a local government's "policy or custom" led to the plaintiff's injury. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. In reaching its holding, the Court relied on "the language of § 1983, read against the background of the [statute's] legislative history." Id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018. Because § 1983 imposes liability only where a state actor, "under color of some official policy, `causes' an employee to violate another's constitutional rights," the Court reasoned that Congress did not intend to impose vicarious liability on municipalities "solely on the basis of the existence of an employer-employee relationship with a tortfeasor." Id. at 692, 98 S.Ct. 2018. Moreover, in the Civil Rights Act of 1871—the predecessor statute to § 1983—Congress "did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort." Id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018.
Monell's holding remains the exception to the general rule.[4] We have declined to 809*809 bar respondeat superior liability in other contexts. In Bonner, for example, we held that respondeat superior liability applies to claims pursuant to § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because "[t]he application of respondeat superior ... [is] entirely consistent with the policy of that statute, which is to eliminate discrimination against the handicapped." 857 F.2d at 566-67 (quoting Patton v. Dumpson, 498 F. Supp. 933, 943 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)). And, in Duvall v. County of Kitsap, we held that respondeat

superior liability applies to claims brought pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 260 F.3d 1124, 1141 (9th Cir. 2001).
We likewise decline to extend Monell's holding to claims pursuant to § 12601. Several features of the statutory text lead us to that conclusion. See Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1562, 1568, 198 L.Ed.2d 22 (2017) ("We begin, as always, with the text.").
First, § 12601, unlike § 1983, does not include the words "under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage." That difference is important because, by including "custom" in § 1983, Congress expressly contemplated imposing liability on actors who violated constitutional rights under an official policy. The absence of that language from § 12601, therefore, suggests that Congress did not intend to limit liability to those acting under an official law or policy. Instead, the plain text of § 12601 shows that any government agent who engages in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of their constitutional rights violates § 12601.
Second, § 12601 does not limit liability to those who "cause [citizens or persons] to be subjected" to a deprivation of their constitutional rights. The Monell Court interpreted that language, which appears in § 1983, as imposing liability "on a government that, under color of some official policy, `causes' an employee to violate another's constitutional rights." Monell, 436 U.S. at 692, 98 S.Ct. 2018. The lack of that causal phrase in § 12601 suggests that Congress did not intend to limit local governments' liability to situations when "the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers." Id. at 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018. Taken together, these statutory clues persuade us that Congress intended to allow for respondeat superior liability against local governments pursuant to § 12601.
In arguing that the statutory text supports its position, Colorado City relies on the fact that the phrase "pattern or practice" appears in both § 1983 and § 12601. That phrase, it claims, "refers to the same language necessary to show a `custom' under Monell."
We acknowledge that Congress used "pattern or practice" in both statutes, and are mindful that "[a] basic principle of interpretation is that courts ought to interpret similar language in the same way, unless context indicates that they should do otherwise." Shirk v. United States ex rel. Dep't of Interior, 773 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2014). That principle, however, does not necessarily support Colorado City's argument, for Congress has also used "pattern or practice" literally, rather than as a term of art, in several statutes. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a) (authorizing the Attorney General to pursue injunctive relief in cases alleging a pattern or practice of employment discrimination); 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a) (authorizing the Attorney General to bring civil action in cases involving a pattern or practice of Fair Housing Act violations); 42 U.S.C. § 10101(e) (authorizing courts to find a pattern or 810*810 practice of voting rights deprivations). Under those statutes, the United States must demonstrate only that the conduct alleged "was not an isolated or accidental or peculiar event." United States v. Ironworkers Local 86, 443 F.2d 544, 552 (9th Cir. 1971). It need not show the existence of an official policy or custom.

For this reason, Congress's use of "pattern or practice" in § 12601 does not support the weight that Colorado City wishes to place upon it. Congress could have used the phrase to refer to an official policy or custom, as in § 1983, but it also could have used the phrase to refer to a regular event, as in the statutes cited above.
Our interpretation of the statute aligns with our recognition that although "[§] 12601 shares important similarities with § 1983[,] .... the language of § 12601 goes even further than § 1983." County of Maricopa, 889 F.3d at 653. Had Congress wished to eliminate respondeat superior liability under § 12601, it could have easily done so with explicit statutory language. See McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 494, 111 S.Ct. 888, 112 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1991). Its decision not to do so suggests that it intended for § 12601, like most civil rights statutes, to allow for respondeat superior liability.
Unable to muster support for its position in the statutory text, Colorado City urges us to examine § 12601's legislative history. But the Supreme Court has admonished that "legislative history is not the law." Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1631, 200 L.Ed.2d 889 (2018). That principle is particularly salient in a case where the legislative history "is virtually non-existent." Marshall Miller, Police Brutality, 17 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 149, 167 (1998); cf. Azar v. Allina Health Servs., ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1804, 1814, 204 L.Ed.2d 139 (2019) (declining to accord weight to the Medicare Act's legislative history when "the legislative history presented ... is ambiguous at best").
Even if this case warranted consideration of it, the legislative history that Colorado City relies on does not support its argument. Colorado City focuses on the legislative history of § 12601's predecessor bill, the Police Accountability Act of 1991 (PAA). H.R. 2972, 102d Cong. (1991). That history suggests that Congress enacted the PAA to "close [a] gap in the law"—the Justice Department's inability "to address systematic patterns or practices of police misconduct." H.R. Rep. No. 102-242, pt. 1, at 137, 138 (1991). The House Judiciary Committee did not define "pattern or practice," but did mention "[t]wo cases [that] illustrate both the need for this authority and how it will work." Id. One case involved police officers from Mason County, Washington who beat "citizens in four incidents" due to "the lack of training." Id. at 138-39. The other case, which arose from Goldsboro, North Carolina, involved "a young black man who was strangled to death by city police officers." Id. at 139. Congress did not suggest that either incident arose from an official policy or custom. Nonetheless, Colorado City contends that this history—although history of a different and superseded law—demonstrates that Congress did not intend to impose respondeat superior liability under § 12601.
We disagree. At best, the PAA's legislative history supports the argument that Congress passed § 12601's predecessor bill to allow the United States to prosecute municipalities when local police departments violate constitutional rights—whether or not those violations arose from an official policy or custom. Our construction of the statute, which allows local governments to be held liable when their agents engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of their constitutional 811*811 rights, accords with that statutory purpose.

When interpreting legislation, our role "is to apply the statute as it is written —even if we think some other approach might `accor[d] with good policy.'" Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204, 218, 134 S.Ct. 881, 187 L.Ed.2d 715 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Comm'r v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235, 252, 116 S.Ct. 647, 133 L.Ed.2d 611 (1996)). Section 12601 provides a civil cause of action to the United States Attorney General when a local government's agents "engage in a pattern or practice of conduct ... that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States." 34 U.S.C. § 12601. Because the statutory language does not demonstrate that Congress intended to exclude local governments from respondeat superior liability, we hold that § 12601 imposes liability based on general agency principles. Accordingly, the district court did not err in its construction of § 12601.[5]
II. Factual Findings
Colorado City next argues that the district court made three mistakes in its factual findings related to the Towns' alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. First, it argues that the court erroneously included legal conclusions in its findings of fact, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). Second, it contends that the district court improperly adopted the government's proposed findings of fact and failed to independently evaluate the evidence. Third, it argues that the court improperly made summary findings in its written judgment.
We need not address these alleged errors because they do not affect the district court's holding that Colorado City violated § 12601. As the district court stated in its judgment, a finding "of a pattern or practice of violating any one of the three constitutional amendments in question" —the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments—"would entitle [the United States] to relief." The district court held that the Towns violated all three constitutional amendments. Because Colorado City's arguments relate only to the court's findings of fact as to the Fourth Amendment violation, the court's judgment stands even if Colorado City is correct. Accordingly, any such purported error by the district court was harmless.
Colorado City urges us to nevertheless address the merits of its argument because "the district court's erroneous factual findings exposed the Towns to unfounded liability through lawsuits that Isaac Wyler, Patrick Pipkin, and Andrew Chatwin filed for unlawful arrest." Those lawsuits, however, are irrelevant to our harmless error analysis because the relevant question is "whether the [ ]* verdict actually rendered in this trial" was attributable to the district court's error. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993). Thus, the fact that 812*812 other parties may have sued the Towns does not affect our conclusion.
III. Admission of FLDS Leaders' Statements
Finally, we turn to Colorado City's argument that the district court erred when it admitted the statements of various FLDS leaders under the co-conspirator exception to the rule against hearsay.

Before trial, the United States moved to admit several FLDS leaders' statements under the co-conspirator exception. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E); see Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 173, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) ("A statement is not hearsay if ... [t]he statement is offered against a party and is ... a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy." (alterations in original)). The district court held the United States' motion in abeyance pending trial, reasoning:
Although a final decision on this point must await trial evidence, prior proceedings in this case cause the court to believe that the United States will succeed in producing evidence of a joint venture or concert of action between the FLDS Church and the [Towns]. Subject to the United States proving up its concerted action contention, the court is prepared to rule that out-of-court statements of FLDS leaders in furtherance of concerted action between the FLDS Church and [the Towns] [are] not hearsay and [are] admissible.
Later during trial, the court determined that the United States had satisfied its burden of establishing the existence of a conspiracy. It instructed the jury that "the [United States] has made its case, as far as I am concerned, for purposes of the admission of the testimony, that there was a [conspiracy]."
Colorado City first argues that the district court clearly erred by finding the existence of a conspiracy between the Church and the Towns. Its contention rests largely on the claim that "[w]hen the district court `tentatively' ruled that the United States had established a conspiracy, the evidence was insufficient to show the existence of a conspiracy for purposes of Rule 801(d)(2)(E)." That argument fails because "[i]t is not controlling [ ] whether sufficient independent evidence connecting [the Church] with the conspiracy existed at the time the trial judge made his first ruling under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)." United States v. Watkins, 600 F.2d 201, 204-05 (9th Cir. 1979). "In ascertaining whether the foundation has been established, we can, therefore, consider all the evidence independent of the challenged statements, regardless of the order of proof." United States v. MirandaUriarte, 649 F.2d 1345, 1351 (9th Cir. 1981). The evidence must "be considered in a light most favorable to the government." Id.
Here, the United States presented extensive evidence at trial that supported the existence of a conspiracy between the Church and the Towns. That evidence included testimony that: officials from the Towns attended meetings in which FLDS leaders instructed them on how to handle legal issues in a way that advanced the Church's interests; Jeffs excommunicated the Towns' leaders who did not follow his orders; FLDS leaders determined who would occupy the Towns' government positions such as mayor, city council members, and police officers; the Marshal's Office was willfully blind to FLDS members' illegal activities; members of the Marshal's Office helped Jeffs evade capture by the FBI while he was a fugitive; and several of the Towns' officials "spied" on residents who the Church considered "out of conformance with [FLDS] regulations." Taken together, this evidence is sufficient to establish that the Towns conspired with 813*813 FLDS members to advance the Church's illicit objectives. The district court did not clearly err in making that finding.
Colorado City also argues that the district court legally erred by misinterpreting the coconspirator exception to the rule against hearsay. That argument, however, is belied by the

record. The district court repeatedly acknowledged that a statement must be made in furtherance of a conspiracy to qualify under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Moreover, when instructing the jury, the court accurately stated the standard for statements to fall under the coconspirator exception: "one, certain individuals worked with the defendants toward a common goal in a joint venture or in a concerted effort and, two, that those individuals made out-of-court statements during and in furtherance of that effort." Accordingly, we reject Colorado City's argument that the court misconstrued the rules of evidence.
Lastly, contrary to Colorado City's argument, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting over twenty statements by FLDS leaders. Several of the statements, including several transcriptions of Jeffs' dictations and telephone calls, were properly admitted under the coconspirator exception. These statements "catalogued and analyzed factors relevant" to the alleged conspiracy. United States v. Schmit, 881 F.2d 608, 612 (9th Cir. 1989). They include statements by Jeffs recounting instructions he gave to FLDS members to perform underage marriages, describing the appointment of FLDS members to leadership positions in the Towns, and stating that FLDS members had gone into hiding "to not be served [ ] legal papers." That "some portions of the statement[s] may have been `idle chatter' or [`]casual admissions of culpability' [does] not render" the statements inadmissible. Id. That is especially true because, during trial, the Towns moved to exclude "the statement[s] as a whole" rather than "particular passages in the statement[s]." Id.
While certain other statements admitted by the district court and challenged by Colorado City do not fall under the coconspirator exception in Rule 801(d)(2)(E), we hold that the district court did not err in admitting them because they were otherwise admissible. See United States v. Alexander, 48 F.3d 1477, 1487 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding a district court's admission of evidence on a ground "different from the reason given by the district court").
Several of those statements were admissible because they were not hearsay. These included instructions by Jeffs to FLDS members to not communicate with, and to otherwise avoid, "apostates"—residents who were once FLDS members, but who had left the Church. See United States v. Chung, 659 F.3d 815, 833 (9th Cir. 2011) ("Instructions to an individual to do something are ... not hearsay ... because they are not declarations of fact and therefore are not capable of being true or false." (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Reilly, 33 F.3d 1396, 1410 (3d Cir. 1994))). Still others, such as Jeffs' statement that he prayed for the destruction of Arizona and Utah, were introduced for their effect on the listener. See United States v. Payne, 944 F.2d 1458, 1472 (9th Cir. 1991).
Other challenged statements, such as Jeffs' statement about "[t]he attack of [ ]* enemies upon [the FLDS community]," were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Despite the Towns' argument, Ranger John Nick Hanna was qualified to testify about Jeffs' dictations. Rule 803(6) "only requires [testimony by] `someone with knowledge' about the recordkeeping, not necessarily ... someone with knowledge about how the reports were 814*814 made or maintained," ABS Entm't, Inc. v. CBS Corp., 908 F.3d 405, 426 (9th Cir. 2018), and Hanna had spent over four years studying the documents about which he testified. Colorado City has not not shown that the dictations do not meet the trustworthiness standard of the business records exception.

Even if the district court erroneously admitted some hearsay statements, reversal is not warranted. Because the jury rendered only an advisory verdict on the United States' § 12601 claim, our review is limited to "the findings of the court as if there had been no verdict from an advisory jury." Ashland v. Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc., 711 F.2d 1431, 1438 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2335 (3d ed. 1971)). Because the judge ultimately ruled on the United States' § 12601 claim, the court "ha[d] discretion to receive evidence that might be inadmissible in a jury trial." Hollinger v. United States, 651 F.2d 636, 640 (9th Cir. 1981). We conclude that because of the overwhelming evidence that Colorado City deprived non-FLDS residents of their constitutional rights, "it is more probable than not" that the court would have reached the same verdict on the United States' § 12601 claim even if the challenged statements had been excluded. Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Richards, 541 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir. 2008).
CONCLUSION
In holding that the Towns violated § 12601, the district court correctly interpreted the statute and did not err in admitting the statements of FLDS leaders. We need not address Colorado City's arguments about the district court's Fourth Amendment-related factual findings because, even if those arguments are correct, the error was harmless.
AFFIRMED.
[*] The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
[1] The United States also sued the Towns pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., but this appeal does not concern that claim.
[2] Although Hildale City also appealed the district court's decision, it has since withdrawn from this proceeding.
[3] Respondeat superior is "[t]he doctrine holding an employer or principal liable for the employee's or agent's wrongful acts committed within the scope of employment or agency." Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
[4] The Supreme Court has held that respondeat superior liability is also unavailable against local governments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 733, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989). That decision was based on the fact that "the express cause of action for damages created by § 1983 constitutes the exclusive federal remedy for violation of the rights guaranteed in § 1981." Id.
[5] We reject Colorado City's argument that our interpretation of 34 U.S.C. § 12601 violates § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It argues that the district court violated the Supreme Court's decision in City of Canton v. Harris because it "interpreted [§ 12601] to impose vicarious liability upon the Towns without requiring the United States to show that the Towns were responsible for the alleged misconduct." 489 U.S. 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). Not so. The Court's decision in City of Canton, which stated that permitting respondeat superior liability against local governments under § 1983 "would implicate serious questions of federalism," was limited to that statute. Id. at 392, 109 S.Ct. 1197. The Court did not hold that it was unconstitutional to permit respondeat superior liability against local governments in any context.

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1167-1 Filed 01/31/19 Page 1 of 1
Date:	  January	  29,	  2019	   	   To:	  United	  States	  District	  Court	  for	  the	  District	  of	  Arizona	   	   From:	  Jim	  Keith,	  Professional	  Police	  Consultant	  for	  the	  Colorado	  City	  Marshals	  Office	   	   Re:	  No.	  3:12-­‐cv-­‐8123-­‐HRH	  (Prescott	  Division).	  Quarterly	  Report,	  requested	  on	  February	  1st,	   2019.	   	  
1-­‐   The	  Police	  Consultant	  and	  the	  DOJ	  have	  worked	  together	  to	  get	  the	  bulk	  of	  the	  policies	   finished	  during	  this	  last	  quarter.	  We	  are	  planning	  to	  have	  the	  policies	  done	  and	  the	   complete	  manual	  issued	  to	  the	  CCMO	  staff	  by	  the	  end	  of	  February.	  	  The	  majority	  of	  the	   policy	  training	  will	  be	  completed	  by	  then	  as	  well.	  	  Once	  the	  manual	  is	  issued	  we	  will	  be	   able	  to	  release	  the	  policy	  “daily	  training	  bulletins”	  that	  will	  give	  the	  deputies	  daily	   involvement	  in	  the	  policy	  and	  help	  hold	  them	  accountable	  for	  each	  policy.	  	  This	  allows	   continued	  growth,	  development	  and	  understanding	  of	  the	  policies	  year	  round.	   	  
2-­‐   The	  CCMO	  continues	  to	  grow	  and	  develop	  in	  a	  professional	  manner.	  	  We	  have	  hired	  two	   new	  Officers	  and	  one	  Sergeant	  referenced	  in	  the	  last	  report.	  	  We	  have	  also	  hired	  an	   additional	  Sergeant	  and	  now	  the	  department	  is	  fully	  staffed,	  comprising	  of	  the	  Chief,	   two	  Sergeants	  and	  seven	  deputies.	  	  This	  additional	  Sergeant	  is	  a	  retired	  Sheriff	  from	  Iron	   County	  Utah,	  who	  brings	  a	  wealth	  of	  experience	  (25	  years)	  and	  knowledge	  to	  the	  CCMO	   that	  will	  continue	  to	  bring	  trust	  and	  confidence	  to	  the	  department	  and	  community.	  
	   3-­‐   The	  CCMO,	  Colorado	  City	  Elected	  Officials,	  and	  the	  School	  District	  are	  working	  to	  secure	   an	  existing	  building	  from	  the	  school	  district	  that	  can	  be	  remodeled	  and	  used	  as	  a	  new	   Marshals	  Office.	  This	  will	  allow	  them	  to	  have	  adequate	  space	  for	  evidence	  and	  record	   storage,	  as	  well	  as	  much	  needed	  office	  space.	  	  It	  will	  also	  provide	  a	  specific	  place	  for	  the	   community	  to	  interact	  with	  the	  CCMO	  in	  a	  friendly	  and	  professional	  environment.	  	  
	   	  

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 1 of 18
February 1, 2019 To: United States District Court for the District of Arizona From: Roger Carter, Court Monitor Re: February 2019 Monitoring Report for the cities of Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah.
This report is submitted in compliance with § V.C. (39) of the Judgement and Decree Granting​ ​Injunctive Relief (“Order”), requiring a written report every 90 days on injunction compliance by the Defendant Cities and the activities of the Court Monitor.
This report will cover the period from November 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019, and include a current status of compliance on all the Order requirements, identify any obstacles to the work of the Monitor and provide general observations (§ V.C. (40)).
Fair Housing Injunction Requirements Items in Compliance with the Injunction
The towns of Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona are currently in compliance with the following Court injunction requirements.
1. Subdivision Plat - Recorded September 26, 2017. 2. Adoption of Building Department policies and codes - Adopted September 2017. 3. Water Service regulations - Adopted September 2017. 4. Culinary Water Impact Fee - Hildale, Utah adopted a new water impact fee on January
25, 2018, and by Colorado City on February 13, 2018. This requirement is complete. 5. Elected and Staff Contact Information on the website - All information is current. 6. Notice of all Meetings, Minutes, etc. - ​Meeting agendas have been posted correctly,
however, there is a limited number of minutes displayed. Only two Planning Commission meeting minutes were posted in 2018 (January 8 & February 5) and
1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 2 of 18
one posting of Utility Board minutes (January 30). The Monitor recommends that all public meeting minutes be timely posted in accordance to open meeting laws and for public review. 7. All Department Codes, policies, regulations - All information is current. 8. Mandatory Education & Training - The second year of Constitutional training occurred on October 24, 2018. The Fair Housing Training was conducted on November 28, 2018. Injunction Training has not happened for the second year of the Injunction but is being scheduled sometime in the next couple of months. ​The Court Monitor does note an area of concern as it relates to these trainings, however. While the first year training resulted in full compliance, with almost 90% in attendance at the actual meetings and the remaining employees viewing a video of the training, the second year has not seen the same level of participation. Participation in the Fair Housing training has only resulted in 48% compliance among the employees and government officials (34 of 71 participating). The Constitutional Training has a compliance percentage of 39% (29 of 74 participating). Employees are required to sign in when they attend the live trainings and sign an affidavit of compliance when they view the videos. The Monitor has also attended all the trainings to ensure compliance with the Injunction. The communities need to place this as a high priority within the next reporting period to stay in compliance with court orders. This will be monitored closely to ensure compliance (Exhibit A). Outstanding Injunction Items Injunction training is still to be scheduled within the next couple of months. Public officials need to ensure that all identified employees have received all three training
2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 3 of 18
components. Public officials need to ensure that all legislative or appointed bodies meeting minutes are timely posted to the city websites.
Current Monitoring Efforts Marshalls Office
The Monitor is to ensure that there are no violations of Fair Housing requirements by employees of the Marshal’s Office during their interaction with the public.
A. The Monitor continues to evaluate fair housing-related Incident Reports and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) reports ensuring that all calls are reported and done so accurately. There has been good cooperation between Chief Askerlund and the Monitor.
B. The Monitor works closely with both the Police Consultant and Mentor and provides the following summary, as provided by them. a. Consultant - The Marshall’s office has completed the hiring of the two new officers and two sergeants. The department is now fully staffed. The office continues to grow and develop professionally. Department policies are expected to be received back from the DOJ by the end of February, at which time a full policy manual will be provided. Once completed, daily training bulletins will then be issued to the department to help guide their functions. b. Mentor - The department is working better than expected at this stage of compliance. This is mainly due to the new chief marshall and the new hires. The Mentor does note some concern in the relationship between the marshall’s office and the fire department as some of the previous officers are now working in that department. The chief marshall will work on strengthening his department’s relationship with the fire department.
3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 4 of 18
Monitor During this reporting period, the Monitor:
A. The Monitor attended city and town council meetings, planning commission meetings, utility board meetings, and executive sessions.
B. Met with staff and elected officials. C. Reviewed modifications to codes or ordinances that pertain to Fair Housing. D. Attended and provided input on the creation of the new zoning codes for Hildale, Utah. E. The two communities have requested a change to the culinary water impact fee.
Per sections 21 and 34(c) of the Court Injunction, the United States and Court Monitor are required to review the request and provide an opinion. The Court Monitor provided his response on January 22, 2019 (Exhibit B)​. F. Audited building and zoning applications, utility applications and work orders, business license applications, GRAMA requests, and land-use related police calls for service. G. Followed up on the following complaints by residents:
a. The Monitor received one complaint this past quarter concerning specific building department requirements. A direction was provided to the complainant, and the matter was resolved.
b. A complaint from the previous quarter regarding disparate treatment by the utility department was resolved to all parties satisfaction.
4

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 5 of 18
Summary Public official work slowed down during the last quarter due to the holiday season. However, in November a new member of the Colorado City Council was elected. The Monitor met with this newly elected official to provide training on the Court Injunction. Colorado City continues to work on their zoning codes and is anticipating adoption of these in the upcoming year. Policies and procedures continue to be put in place in the utility department. These policies include language which allows citizens, who may feel aggrieved by a governmental decision, to pursue an appeal route within the organization. These new policies will ensure more sound due process and a more transparent decision-making procedure. The concern for government officials as they move into the second year of court oversight will be maintaining the vigilance in compliance with all court-ordered requirements. Each of the mandates imposed upon the communities is to not only ensure that the system provides equal treatment to all citizens but also to guarantee that this fairness becomes fundamental, cultural, systemic, and enduring within the organization. To this end, both the injunctive requirements and oversight length of time was imposed. I am confident that the communities will continue to respond to the Court Injunction and the direction of the Court Monitor in a positive way and with an eye towards a bright future.
5

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 6 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 7 of 18
Exhibit A

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 8 of 18

Fair Housing and Constitutional Training

U. S. District Court Mandatory Education and Training Workshops

Fair Housing Training: September 5, 2017

Constitutional Training: September 25, 2017

x = Attended in person

X = Viewed later (separate affidavit)

NLW = No longer with the Town

NR = Not required to receive training

Training Received

Category Name

Fair Housing Constitutional Requirements of Injunction

Colorado City Town Council

Joseph Allred

x

x

x

Anthus Barlow

x

x

X

Jeffery Jessop

x

x

x

Ralph Johnson

x

x

x

Donald Richter

x

x

x

Karen Barlow

X

x

x

Anthony Barlow

x

X

NLW

Joanne Shapley

X

X

x

Hildale Town Council

Philip Barlow

x

x

NLW

Carlos Jessop

X

x

NLW

Brian Jessop

X

x

NLW

Elmer Johnson

x

x

x

Doran Jessop

X

X

x

Edwin Barlow

x

x

NLW

Donia Jessop

X

X

x

Maha Layton

X

X

x

Jared Nicol

X

X

x

Jvar Dutson

X

X

Stacy Seay

X

X

X

Utility Board

Jacob Jessop

x

x

NLW

Craig Roundy

X

X

NLW

Berklee Holm

x

NLW

NLW

Sterling Jessop Jr

x

x

x

Moroni Johnson

NLW

NLW

NLW

Alan Dockstader

x

x

NLW

Patrick Johnson

x

x

NLW

Jason Black

X

X

X

Arvin Black

X

X

x

Nathan Burnham

X

X

x

Alma Cawley

X

X

X

Haven Barlow

X

X

X

Michael Cawley

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 9 of 18

Colorado City/Hildale Planning Commission

Nephi Allred

x

X

X

Paul Stanley Jessop

X

X

x

Millward Barlow Jr.

X

X

NLW

Kim Knudson

x

x

x

Charles Hammon

Charles Bradshaw

Aaron LaCorti

STAFF

Administrative Staff

Andrew Barlow

x

Raymond Barlow

x

Vance Barlow

x

Leonard Black

NR

David Darger

x

Rachel Fischer

X

Kent Page

x

Jim Peterson

X

Louise Stubbs

X

Lovisa White

x

Rosaleta White

x

Christian Kesselring

X

x

x

x

NLW

x

x

NR

NR

x

NLW

X

x

NLW

NLW

X

x

x

x

x

x

X

x

X

x

Janitorial Staff

Makayla Barlow

NR

NR

x

Midge Barlow

NR

NR

NR

Mildred Barlow

NR

NR

NR

Katrina Stubbs

NR

NR

NR

Airport Board & Staff

Daniel Barlow Jr.

X

x

X

Ladell Bistline Jr.

x

x

x

Paul Black

x

x

x

Charles Cooke

X

X

x

Jacob Jessop

x

x

Emergency Dispatch Staff

Kevin Barlow Jr.

NR

NR

NR

Lorenzo Barlow

NR

NR

NR

Mary Barlow

NR

NR

NR

Natalie Barlow

NR

NR

NR

Patton Barlow

NR

NR

NR

Sterling Barlow

NR

NR

NR

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 10 of 18

Rozina Chatwin

NR

NR

NR

Warren Darger

NR

NR

NR

Kendrick Johnson

NR

NR

NR

Stacie Knudson

NR

NR

NR

Lucille Barlow

Vienna Barlow

Tamara Steed

April Reusch

Landfill Staff

Lyle Barlow

NR

John Todd Barlow

x

Winford Barlow

X

Isaac Johnson

NR

Ralph Johnson Jr.

NR

Heber Roundy

NR

Law Enforcement Staff

Mark Askerlund

X

Daniel Roy Barlow

x

Jacob Barlow Jr.

X

Taylor Barlow

x

Shaun Cox

X

Jerry Darger

X

Max Horsley

X

Shem Jessop

X

Sam Johnson

x

Daniel Musser

X

Hyrum Musser

X

Hyrum Roundy

x

Magistrate Court

Barbara Brown

NR

Streets & Roads/Parks Staff

Moroni Barlow

x

Dean Cooke

x

Heber White

x

Jayson Cooke

NR

Vergel Jessop

x

Ed Lane

x

Nathaniel Barlow

NR

Utilities Department

NR

NR

X

x

X

x

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

X

X

X

x

x

NLW

x

x

X

X

x

NLW

X

x

x

X

x

x

x

X

X

x

x

NR

NR

NR

NR

X

x

x

x

NR

NR

NLW

NLW

x

NR

NR

x

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 11 of 18

John R. Barlow

X

Justin Barlow

x

Melvin Barlow

x

Patton Barlow

x

Richard J. Barlow

x

Susie Barlow

X

Vincen Barlow

X

Weston Barlow

x

David Boshard

X

Angelene Chatwin

X

Michelle Chatwin

x

Lavern Fischer

x

Leslie Jessop

X

Nap Jessop

x

Victor Jessop

x

Mary Ellen Johnson

x

Mariah Lacorti

X

Cathryn Steed

x

Harrison Johnson

X

x

x

NLW

NLW

NLW

x

NLW

x

NLW

X

x

X

X

x

x

X

x

X

x

x

NLW

x

NLW

x

X

X

X

x

X

x

x

X

x

x

NLW

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 12 of 18

Fair Housing and Constitutional Training

U. S. District Court Mandatory Education and Training Workshops

Fair Housing Training: November 28, 2018

Constitutional Training: October 24, 2018

x = Attended in person

X = Viewed later (separate affidavit)

NLW = No longer with the Town

NR = Not required to receive training

Training Received

Category Name

Fair Housing Constitutional Requirements of Injunction

Colorado City Town Council

Joseph Allred

x

x

Anthus Barlow

x

Jeffery Jessop

x

x

Ralph Johnson

Donald Richter

x

Alma Hammon

x

Joanne Shapley

Hildale Town Council

Donia Jessop

Maha Layton

x

Jared Nicol

x

x

Jvar Dutson

Lawrence Barlow

Stacy Seay

x

Utility Board

Arvin Black

Haven Barlow

Michael Cawley

x

Sterling Jessop Jr

x

Stacy Seay

Jason Black

Nathan Burnham

Ralph Johnson

Jvar Dutson

Colorado City/Hildale Planning Commission

Charles Bradshaw

Aaron LaCorti

x

Paul Stanley Jessop

Charles Hammon

x

Jennifer Kesselring

Randy Barlow

NR

x

Brigham Holm

x

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 13 of 18

STAFF

Administrative Staff

Andrew Barlow

x

x

John R. Barlow

x

Vance Barlow

x

Vincen Barlow

x

Louise Stubbs

x

x

Lovisa White

NR

x

Rosaleta White

x

x

Christian Kesselring

x

Rachel Fischer

x

Dean Cooke

x

Warren Darger

x

John T. Barlow

x

Airport Board & Staff

Daniel Barlow Jr.

Ladell Bistline Jr.

x

x

Paul Black

x

x

Charles Cooke

Jacob Jessop

x

Law Enforcement Staff

Mark Askerlund

x

Daniel Roy Barlow

x

Taylor Barlow

x

x

Shaun Cox

x

Max Horsley

x

Shem Jessop

Sam Johnson

NR

Daniel Musser

x

Hyrum Musser

x

Robbins Radley

x

Shane Barnard

x

Benjamin Barlow

x

Hyrum Roundy

Magistrate Court Barbara Brown

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 14 of 18

Utilities Department

Harrison Johnson

x

Susie Barlow

Weston Barlow

x

x

Angelene Chatwin

Nap Jessop

Victor Jessop

Mariah Lacorti

Ammon Todd Jim

x

x

Ralph Johnson Jr.

x

x

Athena Cawley

x

Other Employees (were not required)

Heber White

x

x

Nathaniel Barlow

x

x

David Lane

x

Katrina Stubbs

x

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 15 of 18
Exhibit B

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 16 of 18
January 22, 2019
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
Steven Ryals United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20053
Jeff Matura Barrett & Matura 8925 East Pima Pkwy Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Christian Kesselring Hildale City, Utah 320 East Newell Ave Hildale, UT 84784
Re: Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona Notice of Intent to Change Culinary Water Impact Fee
I am in receipt of both Hildale City and Colorado City’s request for a reduction in the Culinary Water Impact Fee (“Impact Fee”). Both cities have complied with the requirement of requesting a change in Impact Fee as outlined in section 21 on page 38 of the Court’s April 18, 2017, Injunctive Order which states:
Except as indicated in paragraph 17, above, the amount of any impact fee for culinary water connections may only be modified if written notice is given to counsel for the United States and the Monitor 30 days before the proposed modification is to take effect and the United States and the Monitor makes no objection thereto. The notice referenced in this paragraph must specify the new impact fee amount and must include any reports or analyses supporting the modification. The Culinary Water Impact Fee Plan shall be reviewed by a licensed engineer or engineering firm at no less than five-year intervals.
Furthermore, section 34(e) states that the Monitor should
review any changes proposed by the Defendant Cities to the Building Department Policies and Procedures, the Water Services Regulations, or the culinary water impact fee and provide a statement of objection or non-objection

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 17 of 18
to the Defendant Cities and the United States within 30 days of receiving notice of the proposed changes.
This response satisfies both sections 21 and 34 of the April 18, 2017, Injunctive Order.
The Court Monitor finds no objection to the reduction of the Impact Fee to the amount of $0.00.​ This opinion is based upon the following:
1. There is no prima facia indication that this reduction will result in any discriminatory policy as long as it is applied to all applicants equally.
2. Although state statutes do require engineering analysis as a basis for Impact Fee calculation, it is let to the discretion of the legislative bodies to enact an Impact Fee that is less than the proposed maximum amount as outlined in the engineers Capital Facilities Plan.
3. The cursory analysis provided by the joint Hildale/Colorado City Utility Department does indicate that due to population decline there is a surplus of resources that were not anticipated in the current Capital Facilities Plan, thereby, not requiring the future expansion of originally expected infrastructure. The analysis provided is sufficient to meet the requirement of section 21 of the Injunctive Order.
The Capital Facilities Plan and Impact Fee for these two communities is unique because it provides a joint analysis and similar fee requirement on two different cities because they share an integrated water system, in essence, a regional facility. The complication arises in that each community will need to be cognizant of the particular Utah and Arizona statutes that govern the changing of each municipalities Capital Facilities Plan and Impact Fee. Due to this complication, the Court Monitor recommends the following.
1. Both cities should coordinate the timing of the elimination of the Impact Fee to be effective at the same point after they have met the requirements for modification under their appropriate statutes. Coordination of timing will provide equal treatment to all applicants being served by the same regional facilities. Arizona Statutes appear to have a higher threshold requirement for both modification and public involvement of their Plan and Impact Fee (see A.R.S 9-463.05). Therefore, Hildale should adjust their timing of implementation to coordinate with that of Colorado City.
2. An Impact Fee represents an agreement between the applicant and the communities that specific infrastructure will be provided in exchange for the payment of a fee. Based upon this, the cities should evaluate the number of applicants who have paid Impact Fees (including the community of Centennial Park) and consider refunding those fees or the pro-rata portion that will not be used to construct any originally anticipated facilities at the time of payment which will now not be built.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1168-1 Filed 02/01/19 Page 18 of 18
I commend both cities for their efforts in providing fair and equal policy and treatment to the members of their respective communities and look forward to their cooperatively implementing their recommendations. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely,
Roger Carter Court Monitor

 
 Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 1 of 16
May 1, 2019
To: United States District Court for the District of Arizona From: Roger Carter, Court Monitor Re: May 2019 Monitoring Report for the cities of Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah.
This report is submitted in compliance with § V.C. (39) of the Judgement and Decree Granting​ ​Injunctive Relief (“Order”), requiring a written report every 90 days on injunction compliance by the Defendant Cities and the activities of the Court Monitor (“Monitor”).
This report will cover the period from February 1, 2019, to April 30, 2019, and include a current status of compliance on all the Order requirements, identify any obstacles to the work of the Monitor and provide general observations (§ V.C. (40)).
Fair Housing Injunction Requirements Items in Compliance with the Injunction
The towns of Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona are currently in compliance with the following Court injunction requirements.
1. Subdivision Plat - Recorded September 26, 2017. 2. Adoption of Building Department policies and codes - Adopted September 2017. 3. Water Service regulations - Adopted September 2017. 4. Culinary Water Impact Fee - Hildale, Utah adopted a new water impact fee on January
25, 2018, and by Colorado City on February 13, 2018. This requirement is complete. 5. Elected and Staff Contact Information on the website - All information is current. 6. Notice of all Meetings, Minutes, etc. - In accordance with the Orders from Chambers
dated February 6, 2019, the Monitor is working with the two communities to ensure that minutes from both the town council as well as the planning commission meetings are
1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 2 of 16
properly posted to the websites. ​ Colorado City currently is missing planning commission meeting minutes through most of 2018. Hildale City also has several missing planning commission meeting minutes throughout 2018 and into 2019. Additionally, Hildale City has not publicly posted city council meeting minutes for 2019. In discussion with the Hildale City Recorder, he has indicated that this was a computer error and that this will be rectified within a short period. More diligence is requested, by the Monitor, to ensure that both city council and planning commission meeting minutes are timely posted to the cities websites. This will ensure compliance with the Court Order and open meeting laws. 7. All Department Codes, policies, regulations - All information is current. 8. Mandatory Education & Training - The second year of Constitutional training occurred on October 24, 2018. The Fair Housing Training was conducted on November 28, 2018. Injunction Training has not been completed to date; however, the Monitor has reviewed with the Hildale City Attorney, who will be providing the training, the need to complete this Order requirement as soon as possible. Mr. Kesselring (attorney) has committed to providing his proposed training to the Department of Justice ("DOJ") for their review no later than May 31, 2019. Once approved by the DOJ, injunction training will proceed immediately after that, with the goal being that all personnel will be trained before June 30, 2019. As was noted in the previous Monitor Report ("Report"), both communities had an unacceptable level of participation in the ongoing Constitutional and Fair Housing training. Since that Report, the cities have exerted great effort in ensuring that all required personnel have received this training. Currently, 98% of obligated staff have been trained on the Constitutional and Fair Housing requirements (Exhibit A), compared
2

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 3 of 16
to 39% and 48% from the previous Report. The Monitor expresses his appreciation for the communities efforts in this regard. The monitor will continue to assist the communities in completing the injunction training and in maintaining this level of compliance into the future. Outstanding Injunction Items Injunction training will be scheduled within the next couple of months. Public officials need to ensure that all legislative or appointed bodies meeting minutes are timely posted to the city websites.
Current Monitoring Efforts Marshalls Office
The Monitor is to ensure that there are no violations of Fair Housing requirements by employees of the Marshal’s Office during their interaction with the public.
A. The Monitor continues to evaluate fair housing-related Incident Reports and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) reports ensuring that all calls are reported and done so accurately. There has been good cooperation between Chief Askerlund and the Monitor.
B. The Monitor works closely with both the Police Consultant and Mentor and provides the following summary, as provided by them. a. Consultant - The Marshall’s office has completed the hiring of two new deputies and the second sergeant. The policy manual has been approved by the DOJ and has been issued to the Marshall’s office. The daily training bulletins that are associated with the policy manual have been issued as well for March and April. The department’s relationship with the community and outside agencies is
3

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 4 of 16
continuing to improve. The Chief and the supervisory staff are doing an outstanding job with the continued development of this department. b. Mentor - The Mentor has met with Chief Askerlund twice over the past reporting period. He notes that the Chief has some concern with the relationship between the two communities, as they have different governing philosophies. The Chief believes he is building trust within the community, but the cultural issues can still be a challenge. The Chief is satisfied with the current staff and is hoping to resolve some of the earlier personnel issues with the Arizona POST. The Mentor has excellent confidence in Chief Askerlund and his current department. Monitor During this reporting period, the Monitor: A. The Monitor attended city and town council meetings, planning commission meetings, utility board meetings, and executive sessions. B. Met with staff and elected officials. C. Reviewed modifications to codes or ordinances that pertain to Fair Housing. D. Attended and provided input on the creation of the new zoning codes for Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona. E. The two communities requested a change to the culinary water impact fee. Per sections 21 and 34(c) of the Court Injunction, the United States and Court Monitor are required to review the request and provide an opinion. The Court Monitor provided his response on January 22, 2019 (Exhibit B)​. ​The United States offered its response on February 1, 2019 (Exhibit C). F. Audited building and zoning applications, utility applications and work orders, business license applications, GRAMA requests, and land-use related police calls for service.
4

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 5 of 16
G. Followed up on the following complaints by residents: a. There were no discrimination or other related complaints received by the Monitor during this reporting period.
Summary The communities of Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona are moving forward but with ever-more divergent paths and at differing speeds. Transition and transparency have become the new norm in what use to be an area of remoteness and cultural isolation. More employees are being hired from outside the community, new residents are moving in, and citizens have an expectation of change. Due to these factors, this area - which was once governed as almost a regional community - has become two distinct cities with differing goals, objectives, and manners in which they are moving forward. New and unique community characteristics are beginning to emerge. Although the growing differences may pose a short-term challenge with interlocal cooperation, the long-term results and the different paths taken by each can create an area where unique citizens can find their own place and voice. Good progress continues in each community. The Court and residents should be pleased with the current results. There is still work to do, but there is every reason to be optimistic about the future of these communities.
5

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 6 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 7 of 16
Exhibit A

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 8 of 16

Fair Housing and Constitutional Training

U. S. District Court Mandatory Education and Training Workshops

Fair Housing Training: November 28, 2018

Constitutional Training: October 24, 2018

x = Attended in person

X = Viewed later (separate affidavit)

NLW = No longer with the Town

NR = Not required to receive training

Training Received

Category Name

Fair Housing Constitutional Requirements of Injunction

Colorado City Town Council

Joseph Allred

x

x

Anthus Barlow

x

X

Jeffery Jessop

x

x

Ralph Johnson

X

X

Donald Richter

x

X

Alma Hammon

x

X

Joanne Shapley

X

X

Hildale Town Council

Donia Jessop

X

X

Maha Layton

X

x

Jared Nicol

x

x

Jvar Dutson

Lawrence Barlow

X

X

Stacy Seay

X

X

Utility Board

Arvin Black

X

X

Haven Barlow

X

X

Michael Cawley

x

X

Sterling Jessop Jr

x

X

Stacy Seay

X

X

Jason Black

X

X

Nathan Burnham

X

X

Ralph Johnson

X

X

Jvar Dutson

Colorado City Planning Commission

Charles Bradshaw

X

X

Aaron LaCorti

x

X

Paul Stanley Jessop

Charles Hammon

x

X

Johnathan Barlow

X

X

Hildale City Planning Commission

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 9 of 16

Charles Hammon

x

X

Jennifer Kesselring

X

X

Randy Barlow

NLW

x

Brigham Holm

x

X

Tracy Barlow

Derik Holm

Rex Jessop

Nathan Fischer

STAFF

Administrative Staff

Andrew Barlow

x

x

John R. Barlow

X

x

Vance Barlow

x

X

Vincen Barlow

X

x

Louise Stubbs

x

x

Lovisa White

NLW

x

Rosaleta White

x

x

Christian Kesselring

x

X

Rachel Fischer

X

x

Dean Cooke

X

x

Warren Darger

x

X

John T. Barlow

x

X

Millennia Jeffs

X

X

Law Enforcement Staff

Mark Askerlund

X

x

Daniel Roy Barlow

X

x

Taylor Barlow

x

x

Shaun Cox

X

x

Max Horsley

X

x

Sam Johnson

NR

NR

Daniel Musser

X

x

Hyrum Musser

x

X

Robbins Radley

x

X

Shane Barnard

x

X

Mark Gower

X

X

Benjamin Barlow

x

X

Magistrate Court Barbara Brown

Utilities Department

Harrison Johnson

x

X

Susie Barlow

X

X

Weston Barlow

x

x

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 10 of 16

Angelene Chatwin

X

X

Nap Jessop

X

X

Victor Jessop

X

X

Mariah Lacorti

X

X

Ammon Todd Jim

x

x

Ralph Johnson Jr.

x

x

Athena Cawley

x

X

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 11 of 16
Exhibit B

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 12 of 16
January 22, 2019
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
Steven Ryals United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20053
Jeff Matura Barrett & Matura 8925 East Pima Pkwy Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Christian Kesselring Hildale City, Utah 320 East Newell Ave Hildale, UT 84784
Re: Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona Notice of Intent to Change Culinary Water Impact Fee
I am in receipt of both Hildale City and Colorado City’s request for a reduction in the Culinary Water Impact Fee (“Impact Fee”). Both cities have complied with the requirement of requesting a change in Impact Fee as outlined in section 21 on page 38 of the Court’s April 18, 2017, Injunctive Order which states:
Except as indicated in paragraph 17, above, the amount of any impact fee for culinary water connections may only be modified if written notice is given to counsel for the United States and the Monitor 30 days before the proposed modification is to take effect and the United States and the Monitor makes no objection thereto. The notice referenced in this paragraph must specify the new impact fee amount and must include any reports or analyses supporting the modification. The Culinary Water Impact Fee Plan shall be reviewed by a licensed engineer or engineering firm at no less than five-year intervals.
Furthermore, section 34(e) states that the Monitor should
review any changes proposed by the Defendant Cities to the Building Department Policies and Procedures, the Water Services Regulations, or the culinary water impact fee and provide a statement of objection or non-objection

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 13 of 16
to the Defendant Cities and the United States within 30 days of receiving notice of the proposed changes.
This response satisfies both sections 21 and 34 of the April 18, 2017, Injunctive Order.
The Court Monitor finds no objection to the reduction of the Impact Fee to the amount of $0.00.​ This opinion is based upon the following:
1. There is no prima facia indication that this reduction will result in any discriminatory policy as long as it is applied to all applicants equally.
2. Although state statutes do require engineering analysis as a basis for Impact Fee calculation, it is let to the discretion of the legislative bodies to enact an Impact Fee that is less than the proposed maximum amount as outlined in the engineers Capital Facilities Plan.
3. The cursory analysis provided by the joint Hildale/Colorado City Utility Department does indicate that due to population decline there is a surplus of resources that were not anticipated in the current Capital Facilities Plan, thereby, not requiring the future expansion of originally expected infrastructure. The analysis provided is sufficient to meet the requirement of section 21 of the Injunctive Order.
The Capital Facilities Plan and Impact Fee for these two communities is unique because it provides a joint analysis and similar fee requirement on two different cities because they share an integrated water system, in essence, a regional facility. The complication arises in that each community will need to be cognizant of the particular Utah and Arizona statutes that govern the changing of each municipalities Capital Facilities Plan and Impact Fee. Due to this complication, the Court Monitor recommends the following.
1. Both cities should coordinate the timing of the elimination of the Impact Fee to be effective at the same point after they have met the requirements for modification under their appropriate statutes. Coordination of timing will provide equal treatment to all applicants being served by the same regional facilities. Arizona Statutes appear to have a higher threshold requirement for both modification and public involvement of their Plan and Impact Fee (see A.R.S 9-463.05). Therefore, Hildale should adjust their timing of implementation to coordinate with that of Colorado City.
2. An Impact Fee represents an agreement between the applicant and the communities that specific infrastructure will be provided in exchange for the payment of a fee. Based upon this, the cities should evaluate the number of applicants who have paid Impact Fees (including the community of Centennial Park) and consider refunding those fees or the pro-rata portion that will not be used to construct any originally anticipated facilities at the time of payment which will now not be built.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 14 of 16
I commend both cities for their efforts in providing fair and equal policy and treatment to the members of their respective communities and look forward to their cooperatively implementing their recommendations. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely,
Roger Carter Court Monitor

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-1 Filed 05/01/19 Page 15 of 16
Exhibit C

5/1/2019

Case 3:12-cv-0812G3ma-iHl -RToHwn ofDCoolocruadmo Ceitny -tN1o1tic7e 3of-I1ntentFtoilMeoddif0y 5Cu/0lin1ar/y1W9aterPImapgacet Fe1e6 of 16
Roger Carter <rrcivicus@gmail.com>

Town of Colorado City ­ Notice of Intent to Modify Culinary Water Impact Fee

Sacks, Noah (CRT) <Noah.Sacks@usdoj.gov>

Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 1:00 PM

To: Jeffrey Matura <jmatura@barrettmatura.com>, Christian Kesselring <christiank@hildalecity.com>

Cc: "Killebrew, Paul (CRT)" <Paul.Killebrew@usdoj.gov>, "Towt, Katie (CRT)" <Katie.Towt@usdoj.gov>, "Keveney, Sean R

(CRT)" <Sean.R.Keveney@usdoj.gov>, "Donnelly, Matthew (CRT)" <Matthew.Donnelly@usdoj.gov>, "Ryals, Stephen (CRT)"

<Stephen.Ryals@usdoj.gov>, "rrcivicus@gmail.com" <rrcivicus@gmail.com>, "Savner, Emily (CRT)"

<Emily.Savner@usdoj.gov>

Jeffrey and Christian,

Thank you for sending us the requests to reduce the water impact fee to $0. The United States supports this reduction, and we have no objection to it.

Thanks,

Noah Sacks Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Direct Line: (202) 305­1901
[Quoted text hidden]

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3?ik=32097ac6da&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1624297966086630905&simpl=msg-f%3A1624297966086630905

1/1

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1173-2 Filed 05/01/19 Page 1 of 1
Date: April 30, 2019
To: United States District Court for the District of Arizona
From: Jim Keith, Professional Police Consultant for the Colorado City Marshals Office
Re: No. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division). Quarterly Report, Requested May 1st 2019
1- The hiring process for the two new deputies is in the final stages of being certified with Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). This will give CCMO a full team.
2- The Chief has begun the process of Re-Branding CCMO in the Community. They are issuing new uniforms and have put new logos on their patrol vehicles. This will help with the continued efforts to build trust and confidence with the community. The CCMO is seeing the benefits of their efforts to engage the community and be part of them, as they work together to provide professional policing services to all community members.
3- The Policy manual has been approved by the DOJ and has been issued to all CCMO staff. They are now able to participate with the daily training bulletins (DTBs) that relate directly to their policy manual. The DTBs have been issued to the staff for the months of March and April. This will assist them with staying current and with training on the policy throughout the year.
4- They have begun the remodel project on a building in their community that will be a new Police Facility for CCMO to operate out of. (specifics were described in the last report).
The Chief and his two Sergeants are providing Professional leadership, development and continued community engagement efforts to their team, the community and city officials.

 
 Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 1 of 89
CLOSED,PROTO,STD
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Prescott Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:12−cv−08123−HRH

United States of America v. Colorado City, Town of et al Assigned to: Judge H Russel Holland Interim Related Case: 3:13−cv−08297−JAT
Case in other court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 14−17560 Mandate 06/08/15
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 14−17561 Mandate 06/11/15

Date Filed: 06/21/2012 Date Terminated: 04/18/2017 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Ninth Circuit, 17−16472; Mandate 10/18/19

Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

Plaintiff

United States of America

represented by Anika Gzifa US Dept of Justice − Civil Rights (Pennsylvania Ave.) 950 Pennsylvania Ave. 5th Fl. Washington, DC 20530−0001 202−305−3216 Fax: 202−514−0212 Email: anika.gzifa@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 09/04/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christy E Lopez US Dept of Justice − Civil Rights (Pennsylvania Ave.) 950 Pennsylvania Ave. 5th Fl. Washington, DC 20530−0001 202−305−3216 Fax: 202−514−0212 TERMINATED: 08/03/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY

Emily Savner US Dept of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW − NWB Washington, DC 20006 202−353−4081 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: emily.savner@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Treene US Dept of Justice − Civil Rights (Pennsylvania Ave.) 950 Pennsylvania Ave. 5th Fl. Washington, DC 20530−0001 202−514−2228 Email: eric.treene@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/05/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Clarke US Dept of Justice − Civil Rights (Pennsylvania Ave.)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 2 of 89
950 Pennsylvania Ave. 5th Fl. Washington, DC 20530−0001 202−305−4013 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: jessica.crockett@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/05/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan M Smith US Dept of Justice − Civil Rights (Pennsylvania Ave.) 950 Pennsylvania Ave. 5th Fl. Washington, DC 20530−0001 202−305−3107 Fax: 202−514−1116 TERMINATED: 08/03/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lori K Wagner US Dept of Justice − Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3107 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: lori.wagner@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 09/04/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J Donnelly US Dept of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−6255 Fax: 202−514−4883 Email: matthew.donnelly@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachael Tamar Hagler US Dept of Justice − Civil Rights (Pennsylvania Ave.) 950 Pennsylvania Ave. 5th Fl. Washington, DC 20530−0001 202−305−3107 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: Tamar.Hagler@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Richard Keveney US Dept of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20053 202−514−4838 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: sean.r.keveney@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/05/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven H Rosenbaum US Dept of Justice Civil Division

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 3 of 89
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530−0001 (202)616−5594 TERMINATED: 08/03/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY
Thomas E Perez US Dept of Justice Civil Rights Division PO Box 66128 Washington, DC 20035 (202)272−6300 TERMINATED: 08/03/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY
F Nicole Porter US Dept of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20053 202−616−3119 Email: nicole.porter@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 10/03/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Farrell Towt US Dept of Justice − Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 202−353−4140 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: katie.towt@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah David Sacks US Dept of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, NWB Washington, DC 20530 202−305−1901 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: noah.sacks@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Ilana Brett US Dept of Justice − Civil Division OIL−DCS P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−353−1091 Email: sharon.brett@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/05/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen M Ryals US Dept of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20004 202−616−5003 Fax: 202−514−0212 Email: stephen.ryals@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 4 of 89

Colorado City, Town of Arizona

represented by Asha Sebastian Graif Barrett & Matura PC 1850 N Central Ave., Ste. 500 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−792−5700 5723 Fax: 602−792−5710 Email: asebastian@gbmlawpc.com TERMINATED: 08/21/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jeffrey Charles Matura Barrett & Matura PC 8925 E Pima Center Pkwy., Ste. 215 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 602−792−5700 Fax: 602−792−5710 Email: jmatura@barrettmatura.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Josephine Abke Stirba PC 215 S State St., Ste. 750 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 801−364−8300 Fax: 801−364−8355 Email: kabke@stirba.com TERMINATED: 05/12/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

R Blake Hamilton Durham Jones & Pinegar 111 E Broadway, Ste. 900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111−5235 801−415−3000 Fax: 801−415−3500 Email: bhamilton@djplaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Jane England Barrett & Matura PC 8925 E Pima Center Pkwy., Ste. 215 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 602−792−5700 Fax: 602−792−5710 Email: mengland@barrettmatura.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Hildale, City of Utah

represented by Christian August Kesselring Wasatch Law Group PLLC P.O. Box 842 Hildale, UT 84784 435−817−9657 Email: christian@wasatchlawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Michael Hansen Stirba PC 215 S State St., Ste. 750 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 801−364−8300

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 5 of 89

Fax: 801−364−8355 Email: mhansen@stirba.com TERMINATED: 05/12/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Josephine Abke (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Peter Stirba Stirba PC 215 S State St., Ste. 750 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 801−364−8300 Fax: 801−364−8355 Email: Peter@stirba.com TERMINATED: 05/12/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

R Blake Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/27/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ashley M Gregson Durham Jones & Pinegar 111 E Broadway, Ste. 900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111−5235 801−415−3000 Fax: 801−415−3500 Email: agregson@djplaw.com TERMINATED: 02/27/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Twin City Power TERMINATED: 06/17/2015

represented by J Michael Hansen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Josephine Abke (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Peter Stirba (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

R Blake Hamilton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ashley M Gregson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Twin City Water Authority Incorporated

represented by J Michael Hansen (See above for address)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 6 of 89

TERMINATED: 05/12/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Josephine Abke (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Peter Stirba (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

R Blake Hamilton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ashley M Gregson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Ronald Cooke TERMINATED: 01/08/2016

represented by William G Walker Law Offices of William G Walker PC 1316 E Broadway Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85719 520−622−3330 Fax: 520−882−6833 Email: wgwpc@aol.com TERMINATED: 01/08/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant
Jinjer Cooke TERMINATED: 01/08/2016

represented by William G Walker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant
Seth Cooke TERMINATED: 01/08/2016

represented by William G Walker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant
Nephi Jeffs TERMINATED: 01/08/2016

represented by Michael L Piccarreta Piccarreta Davis Keenan Fidel PC 2 E Congress St., Ste. 1000 Tucson, AZ 85701 520−622−6900 Fax: 520−622−0521 Email: mlp@pd−law.com TERMINATED: 01/08/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant
Isaac Jeffs TERMINATED: 01/08/2016

represented by Michael L Piccarreta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/08/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 7 of 89

Movant David Darger TERMINATED: 11/09/2015
Movant Daniel Steed TERMINATED: 11/09/2015
Movant Josephine Roundy TERMINATED: 11/09/2015
Movant Sara Barlow TERMINATED: 11/09/2015
Movant Haven Barlow TERMINATED: 01/08/2016
Movant Lyle Jeffs TERMINATED: 01/14/2016

represented by Rick D Bonewell Bonewell Morris & Associates LLC Southern Utah Branch 50 E 100 S, Ste. 101 St George, UT 84770 435−688−7117 Fax: 435−688−7102 Email: attyrick@msn.com TERMINATED: 11/09/2015
represented by Rick D Bonewell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2015
represented by Rick D Bonewell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2015
represented by Rick D Bonewell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2015
represented by R Blake Hamilton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jefferson Lee Keenan Piccarreta & Davis PC 145 S 6th Ave Tucson, AZ 85701 520−622−6900 Fax: 520−622−0521 Email: bpolowetz@pd−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L Piccarreta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/21/2012 06/21/2012 06/21/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT, filed by United States of America (submitted by Lori Wagner). (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(REK) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
2 NOTICE/ Certificate by United States of America (submitted by Lori Wagner). (REK) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
3 This case has been assigned to the Honorable Michelle H. Burns. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV 12−08123−PCT−MHB. Magistrate Election form attached. (Attachments: # 1 Magistrate Consent Form)(REK) (Entered: 06/21/2012)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 8 of 89

07/05/2012 07/12/2012 07/27/2012 07/27/2012
07/27/2012 07/30/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012 07/31/2012 08/01/2012 08/01/2012 08/01/2012 08/01/2012 08/01/2012
08/03/2012 08/15/2012

4 Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
5 NOTICE re filing of motion to transfer related case by United States of America . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit − motion filed in 3:10cv8105−JAT)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
6 Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 07/27/2012)
7 Minute Order: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.8(a), a request has been received for a random reassignment of this case to a District Judge FURTHER ORDERED Case reassigned by random draw to Judge H. Russel Holland. All further pleadings/papers should now list the following COMPLETE case number: CV 12−8123−PCT−HRH. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 07/27/2012)
8 Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 07/27/2012)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. Colorado City, Town of waiver sent on 6/26/2012. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. Hildale, City of waiver sent on 6/26/2012. (Wagner, Lori) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. Twin City Power waiver sent on 6/26/2012. (Wagner, Lori) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. Twin City Water Authority Incorporated waiver sent on 6/26/2012. (Wagner, Lori) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
13 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Kathleen Abke on behalf of defendants Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, and Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (BAS) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
14 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Peter Stirba on behalf of defendants Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, and Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (BAS) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
15 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney R Blake Hamilton on behalf of defendants Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, and Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (BAS) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 150, receipt number PHX124653 as to Kathleen Abke, Peter Stirba, R Blake Hamilton. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
16 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 13 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 14 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 15 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
17 NOTICE OF WAIVER OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE by Steven H Rosenbaum; Jonathan M Smith; Christy E Lopez and Thomas E Perez, counsel for Plaintiff United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
18 * MOTION for Extension of Time For All Defendants To Respond To The United States' Motion To Transfer Related Case 5 UNOPPOSED by Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) *Modified to include document relationship and to remove filer (Colorado City, Town of) on 8/15/2012 (KMG). (Entered: 08/15/2012)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 9 of 89

08/22/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012
08/27/2012 08/27/2012 09/10/2012 09/10/2012 09/13/2012 09/13/2012 09/17/2012
09/20/2012 09/24/2012 09/24/2012 09/26/2012 09/27/2012

19 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey Charles Matura on behalf of Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
20 *MOTION for More Definite Statement on Count One and MOTION to Dismiss Count Two and Count Three by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3)(Matura, Jeffrey). *Modified to Add MOTION for More Definite Statement on 8/28/2012 (KMG). (Entered: 08/27/2012)
21 * MOTION to Dismiss Case or in the Alternative MOTION for a More Definite Statement by Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Abke, Kathleen) *Modified to remove filer and to include Motion for More Definite Statement on 8/28/2012 (KMG). (Entered: 08/27/2012)
22 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Thomas E. Perez. Reason for return: Box closed, unable to forward. Document number 7. (BAH) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
23 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Thomas E. Perez. Reason for return: Box closed, unable to forward. Document number 3. (BAH) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
24 * MOTION to Change Venue/Transfer Case to District of Utah by Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Abke, Kathleen) *Modified to removed filer "Colorado City, Town of" on 9/27/2012 (KMG). (Entered: 09/10/2012)
25 NOTICE re Filing Response to United States' Motion to Transfer Related Case by Colorado City, Town of . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
26 RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION to Dismiss Case and Motion For More Definite Statement on Count One MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
27 RESPONSE in Opposition re 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case or in the Alternative for a More Definite Statement MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
28 ORDER granting the 18 Motion for Extension of Time − Like motions to transfer have been filed in both this case and Judge Teilborg's case (CV 10−8105−PCT−JAT). Pursuant to L.R. Civ. 42.1(b), the motion for transfer will be taken up "by the district judge assigned the lowest case number." Accordingly, Judge Teilborg will decide the pending motion for transfer of Judge Holland's case. In consideration of the foregoing, further proceedings in this case will be held in abeyance, by which the court means: (a) Development of currently pending motions in this case shall continue as usual; and (b) Judge Holland will take no action on currently pending motions until a decision by Judge Teilborg as to the motion to transfer. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 9/17/2012.(KMG) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
29 NOTICE re of filing by United States of America . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit United States' Reply)(Wagner, Lori) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
30 REPLY to Response to Motion re 20 MOTION to Dismiss Case and Motion For More Definite Statement on Count One MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
31 REPLY to Response to Motion re 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case or in the Alternative for a More Definite Statement MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
32 *Joinder re 24 MOTION to Change Venue/Transfer Case to District of Utah by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) *Modified to correct event "Joinder" on 9/27/2012 (KMG). (Entered: 09/26/2012)
33 *RESPONSE to Motion re 32 MOTION for Joinder re 24 MOTION to Change Venue/Transfer Case to District of Utah , 24 MOTION to Change Venue/Transfer Case to District of Utah filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Wagner, Lori) *Document is not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(c) − text searchability; Attorney notified on 9/28/2012 (KMG). (Entered: 09/27/2012)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 10 of 89

10/08/2012
11/16/2012 11/20/2012
11/21/2012 11/29/2012 11/29/2012
11/30/2012 12/10/2012 12/13/2012 12/13/2012 12/13/2012 12/19/2012
12/21/2012 01/09/2013

34 REPLY to Response to Motion re 24 MOTION to Change Venue/Transfer Case to District of Utah filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Plaintiff−Intervenor State of Arizona's 11th Supplemental Disclosure Statement)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/08/2012)
35 ORDER the United States' Motion to Transfer Related Case (doc. 275 in CV−10−8105) is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall file a copy of this Order in CV−12−8123−PCT−HRH and CV−10−8105−PCT−JAT. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 11/16/12. (TLJ) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
36 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − The court is prepared to take up the motions of defendants City of Hildale, Utah, Twin City Power, and Twin City Water Authority (collectively the "Hildale Defendants") and defendant Town of Colorado City, Arizona, for a change of venue. (Docket Nos. 24 and 32 .) Oral argument has been requested. Ordinarily, the court would not hear oral argument on motions such as these; however, in light of the following, oral argument will be scheduled. (Note: See PDF for full details.) (KMG) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
37 ORDER Setting Hearing on 32 MOTION for Joinder and 24 MOTION to Change Venue/Transfer Case to District of Utah :Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 11/30/2012 at 11:00AM (Arizona time) before Judge H Russel Holland. See order for details. (SJF) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
38 ORDER denying 21 Hildale's Motion to Dismiss as to first and second causes of action and granted as to plaintiff's third cause of action, with leave to amend on or before December 21, 2012. Hildale's Motion for More Definite Statement 21 is denied. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 11/29/12.(SJF) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
39 ORDER: The City's motion for a more definite statement is denied as to plaintiff's first and second causes of action. The City's motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiff's second cause of action and is granted as to plaintiff's third cause of action, with leave to amend. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 11/29/12.(SJF) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
40 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Motion Hearing held on 11/30/2012, Motions Taken Under Advisement: 24 MOTION to Change Venue/Transfer Case to District of Utah. (ECRO Denali Elmore.)(LAD) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
41 ORDER the 24 Motion to Change Venue is denied as to all of the defendants. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 12/7/2012.(KMG) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
42 Town of Colorado City, Arizona's ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Colorado City, Town of.(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
43 DEFENDANT'S DEMAND for Jury Trial by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
44 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated.(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
45 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS Pursuant to Rules 16(b) and 26(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 16.2, counsel for all parties shall conduct a preliminary scheduling conference within 14 days from service of this order for purposes of jointly completing a scheduling and planning report. The report should conform to the attached form. The court is in the process of making this form available on the District of Arizona web page. It may not be available for purposes of this case. Within 21 days from service of this order, counsel for plaintiff shall serve and file the parties' report with the court. The court will employ the report for purposes of entering a scheduling and planning order. (KMG) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
46 NOTICE re United States' Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000b by United States of America . (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
47 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 01/09/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 11 of 89

01/16/2013 01/18/2013 01/22/2013 01/25/2013 01/25/2013 01/25/2013 01/25/2013 01/25/2013 01/28/2013
02/08/2013 03/12/2013 03/15/2013 03/15/2013 03/15/2013
03/15/2013

48 AMENDED by (Doc. 225 ) SCHEDULING AND PLANNING ORDER: Discovery due by 1/31/2014. Dispositive motions due by 3/17/2014. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 1/15/2013. (Note: See PDF for full details.)(KMG) Modified on 10/7/2013 (LSP). (Entered: 01/16/2013)
49 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Proposed Confidentiality Agreement (Unopposed) by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 proposed order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
50 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS granting the 49 Motion for Extension of Deadline − The deadline for the parties to submit their proposed confidentiality agreement or for the United States to move for a protective order is extended until January 25, 2013.(KMG) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
51 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order)(Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
52 NOTICE re Service of Town of Colorado City's Initial Disclosure Statement by Colorado City, Town of . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
53 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated Initial Disclosure Statement (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
54 *NOTICE of Change of Address (Firm Name) by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) *Modified to correct event on 1/28/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 01/25/2013)
55 NOTICE re of Service of Initial Disclosures by United States of America . (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
56 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS The parties have filed their re 51 Joint MOTION for Protective Order − The court is prepared to enter that order after clarification of one matter: Paragraph 5 of the proposed order describes "Qualified Persons". Included by subparagraph (b) are "Defendants and counsel for Defendants". Defendants are corporate entities or other inanimate entities. The court doubts that the parties intend that all employees of the defendants be considered qualified persons; however, if that is the intent, it should be made clear. Otherwise, the order should specify who among the defendants' employees are qualified persons. Counsel will please confer and provide the court with a proposed amendment or revision to paragraph 5(b) of the proposed protective order.(KMG) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
57 NOTICE re Service of United States' First Supplemental Initial Disclosures by United States of America . (Wagner, Lori) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
58 *NOTICE OF SERVICE by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated (Hamilton, R) *Modified to correct event type on 3/14/2013 (TLJ). (Entered: 03/12/2013)
59 Second MOTION to Change Venue/Transfer Case to District of Utah by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A List of Witness Locations)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
60 Joinder re 59 Second MOTION to Change Venue/Transfer Case to District of Utah by Defendant Colorado City, Town of filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
61 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : Plaintiff's Claims for Damages and Civil Penalities by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A UEP v. Chatwin, # 2 Exhibit B Family Fights FLDS for Utilities, # 3 Exhibit C UEP Property Stripped, # 4 Exhibit D Civil Docket, # 5 Exhibit E Deposition of John Cook)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
62 Joinder re 61 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : Plaintiff's Claims for Damages and Civil Penalities by Defendant Colorado City, Town of filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/15/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 12 of 89

03/22/2013 03/26/2013 04/01/2013 04/01/2013 04/05/2013 04/08/2013
04/11/2013 04/11/2013
04/15/2013 04/22/2013 04/22/2013 04/22/2013 04/23/2013 04/23/2013 04/26/2013
04/26/2013 04/26/2013

63 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS re Proposed Protective Order (please see attached order for complete information). (TLJ) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
64 *MOTION for Protective Order by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wagner, Lori) *Modified to correct Motion event on 3/27/2013* (REW). (Entered: 03/26/2013)
65 RESPONSE to Motion re 61 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : Plaintiff's Claims for Damages and Civil Penalities filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
66 RESPONSE to Motion re 59 Second MOTION to Change Venue/Transfer Case to District of Utah filed by United States of America. (Wagner, Lori) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
67 CONFIDENTIALITY STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER re 64 (please see attached order for complete information). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 4/4/13. (TLJ) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
68 *NOTICE OF SERVICE by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated Of Hildale Defendants' Second Set Of Interrogatories, Requests For Production, And Requests For Admission To Plaintiff (Hamilton, R) *Modified to correct event on 4/11/2013 (TLJ). (Entered: 04/08/2013)
69 REPLY to Response to Motion re 59 Second MOTION to Change Venue/Transfer Case to District of Utah filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
70 REPLY to Response to Motion re 61 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : Plaintiff's Claims for Damages and Civil Penalities filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Article, # 2 Exhibit B − Hearing Transcript)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
71 NOTICE re Service of United States' Responses to Hildale Defendants' Discovery Requests by United States of America re 58 Certificate of Service . (Wagner, Lori) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
72 NOTICE re Of Service Of Hildale Defendants' Preliminary Witness List by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
73 NOTICE re Service of Town of Colorado City's Preliminary Witness List by Colorado City, Town of . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
74 NOTICE re Notice re US Preliminary Witness List by United States of America . (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
75 NOTICE re of Service of the United States' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant Colorado City by United States of America . (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
76 NOTICE re Service of the United States' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Hildale Defendants by United States of America . (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
77 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Certain Religious Information by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit B − Letter to DOJ Counsel, # 3 Exhibit C − Letter to Hildale Counsel, # 4 Exhibit D − Newspaper Article)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
78 MOTION to Expedite Relief on Hildale Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Regarding Certain Religious Information by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
79 *Joinder re 77 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Certain Religious Information by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) *Modified to correct event on 4/29/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 04/26/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 13 of 89

04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 04/29/2013 05/01/2013
05/09/2013 05/10/2013
05/13/2013 05/14/2013
05/15/2013 05/17/2013

80 NOTICE of Deposition of Arnold Richter, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
81 NOTICE of Deposition of Brian Meldrum, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
82 NOTICE of Deposition of Dan Wayman, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
83 NOTICE of Deposition of Genevive Hainline, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
84 NOTICE of Deposition of Jerold Williams, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
85 NOTICE of Deposition of Leroy Timpson, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
86 NOTICE of Deposition of Louis Bistline, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
87 NOTICE of Deposition of Lydia Stubbs, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
88 NOTICE of Deposition of Pete LaCorti, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
89 NOTICE of Deposition of Ronald Black, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
90 NOTICE of Deposition of Ross Chatwin, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
91 NOTICE of Deposition of Stefanie Colgrove, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
92 NOTICE of Deposition of William Jessop, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
93 ORDER Defendants seek expedited consideration 78 of their motion for a protective order 77 . The request for expedited consideration is granted. Plaintiff shall serve and file its response to the motion for protective order on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, May 10, 2013. Defendants may serve and file a reply memorandum on or before noon Arizona Time, May 14, 2013. The court will endeavor to rule on the foregoing motion practice by May 17, 2013. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 5/1/2013.(KMG) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
94 ORDER denying 59 Renewed Motion for Change of Venue. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 5/9/13.(MAP) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
95 RESPONSE in Opposition re 77 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Certain Religious Information, 79 MOTION for Joinder re 77 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Certain Religious Information filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
96 NOTICE re of Service of the United States' Responses to Hildale Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production by United States of America . (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
97 REPLY to Response to Motion re 77 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Certain Religious Information filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Hamilton Statement, # 2 Exhibit B − J. Barlow Transcript)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
98 ORDER denying 77 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 5/15/13. (MAP) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
99 NOTICE re Service of the United States' Second Supplemental Initial Disclosures by United States of America . (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 05/17/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 14 of 89

05/17/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013
05/31/2013 05/31/2013 06/05/2013
06/06/2013
06/11/2013 06/11/2013 06/11/2013 06/12/2013 06/18/2013 06/20/2013 06/20/2013 06/20/2013 06/21/2013 06/21/2013 06/21/2013

100 NOTICE re Service of United States' First Supplemental Responses to Hildale Defendants First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission by United States of America . (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
101 NOTICE re Service of Hildale Defendants' First Supplemental Initial Disclosure Statement by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
102 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − Pursuant to informal communication with chambers, counsel have confirmed their availability for oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 61 ). Upon representation that counsel will be available, telephonic oral argument will be heard at 11:00 a.m., Alaska Daylight Time (12:00 noon MST; 1:00 p.m. MDT; 3:00 p.m. EDT), on Wednesday, June 5, 2013. Oral argument will be limited to 15 minutes per side. (KMG) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
103 NOTICE re Service of Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Town of Colorado City by United States of America . (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
104 NOTICE re Service of the United States' Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Hildale Defendants by United States of America . (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
105 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Motion Hearing held on 6/5/2013. Court heard arguments re Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 61 ); matter taken UNDER ADVISEMENT, written ruling to issue. (ECRO Suzannette David.) Hearing held 11:02 AM to 11:31 AM.(KMG) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
106 ORDER Defendants' motion 61 to dismiss is denied. Defendants are not precluded from raising a statute of limitations defense at a later date should they discover that plaintiff was aware of the alleged pattern and practice of housing discrimination outside of the applicable statute of limitations periods. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 6/6/2013.(KMG) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
107 *NOTICE re Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) *Incomplete document submitted; Attorney notified on 6/12/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 06/11/2013)
108 *NOTICE re of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Colorado City by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) *Incomplete document submitted; Attorney notified on 6/12/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 06/11/2013)
109 *NOTICE re Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Hildale, Utah by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) *Incomplete document submitted; Attorney notified on 6/12/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 06/11/2013)
110 NOTICE re Service of First Set of Requests for Admission to Defendant Colorado City by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
111 NOTICE re Service of Subpoena on State Bank of Southern Utah by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
112 NOTICE re Service of Subpoena on American West Bank by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
113 NOTICE of Deposition of Fred Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
114 NOTICE re Service of Subpoena on Fred Barlow by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
115 NOTICE of Deposition of Colorado City, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
116 NOTICE of Deposition of City of Hildale, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
117 NOTICE re Service of Hildale Defendants' Partial Response to United States' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/21/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 15 of 89

06/24/2013
06/27/2013 06/27/2013
06/27/2013 06/27/2013 06/28/2013 06/28/2013 06/28/2013 06/28/2013 06/28/2013 07/03/2013
07/03/2013
07/05/2013 07/05/2013 07/05/2013 07/08/2013
07/11/2013 07/16/2013 07/16/2013 07/30/2013 07/30/2013 07/30/2013

118 NOTICE re Notice of Service by Hildale, City of re 76 Notice (Other) Partial Response to United States; First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
119 NOTICE of Deposition of Fred Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
120 *SERVICE EXECUTED filed by United States of America: Certificate of Service re Subpoena upon Fred Barlow by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) *Modified to corrected new event on 6/28/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 06/27/2013)
121 NOTICE of Deposition of Hildale, Utah, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
122 NOTICE of Deposition of Colorado City, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
123 NOTICE re First Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Colorado City, Town of . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
124 NOTICE re Responses to United States First Set of Requests for Production by Colorado City, Town of . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
125 NOTICE re Responses to United States Second Set of Requests for Production by Colorado City, Town of . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
126 NOTICE re Responses to United States' First Set of Requests for Production by Colorado City, Town of . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
127 NOTICE re Responses to United States' Second Set of Requests for Production by Colorado City, Town of . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
128 NOTICE by Hildale, City of re 104 Notice (Other), 76 Notice (Other) Service of Response to First and Second Set of Interrogatories. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
129 NOTICE re Certificate of Service by Hildale, City of re 76 Notice (Other) Response to United States First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
130 NOTICE of Deposition of Jonathan Roundy, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 07/05/2013)
131 NOTICE of Deposition of Shem Jessop, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 07/05/2013)
132 NOTICE of Deposition of Vance Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 07/05/2013)
133 NOTICE re Service of Hildale Defendants' Second Supplemental Initial Disclosure Statement by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
134 NOTICE re Sevice of Town of Colorado City's Discovery Responses by Colorado City, Town of . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
135 NOTICE of Deposition of LOVISA WHITE, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
136 NOTICE of Deposition of JEREMIAH DARGER, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
137 NOTICE of Deposition of Jethro Barlow, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
138 NOTICE of Deposition of Deputy Darrell Cashin, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
139 NOTICE of Deposition of Andrew Chatwin, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/30/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 16 of 89

07/30/2013 07/30/2013 07/30/2013 07/30/2013 07/30/2013 08/06/2013 08/06/2013 08/06/2013
08/06/2013 08/06/2013 08/06/2013 08/07/2013 08/07/2013 08/07/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013
08/09/2013
08/09/2013
08/09/2013
08/09/2013
08/09/2013

140 NOTICE of Deposition of Richard Holm, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
141 NOTICE of Deposition of Willie Jessop, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
142 NOTICE of Deposition of Jinjer Cooke, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
143 NOTICE of Deposition of Ronald Cooke, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
144 NOTICE of Deposition of Isaac Wyler, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
145 NOTICE re Certificate of Service of Subpoena to Fred Barlow by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
146 NOTICE re Certificate of Service of Subpoena to Jonathan Roundy by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
147 NOTICE of Deposition of Jerold Nathan Williams, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
148 NOTICE of Deposition of John Cook, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
149 NOTICE of Deposition of Lorin Holm, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
150 NOTICE of Deposition of Claude Seth Cooke, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
151 NOTICE of Deposition of John Cook, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
152 NOTICE of Deposition of Darrel Cashin, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
153 NOTICE of Deposition of Guy Timpson, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
154 NOTICE of Deposition of Justin Cooke, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
155 NOTICE re Service of the United States' Second Supplemental Responses to Hildale Defendants' Requests for Production by United States of America . (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
156 NOTICE of Deposition of Andrew Chatwin [Amended], filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
157 NOTICE of Deposition of Isaac Wyler [Amended], filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
158 NOTICE of Deposition of Jethro Barlow [Amended], filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
159 NOTICE of Deposition of Jinjer Cooke [Amended], filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
160 NOTICE of Deposition of Ronald Cooke [Amended], filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/09/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 17 of 89

08/09/2013
08/09/2013 08/14/2013
08/21/2013 08/21/2013 08/21/2013 08/21/2013 08/21/2013 08/23/2013 08/23/2013
08/23/2013 08/23/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/27/2013 08/27/2013 08/27/2013 08/27/2013 08/27/2013 08/30/2013 09/04/2013 09/05/2013

161 NOTICE of Deposition of Seth Cooke [Amended], filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
162 NOTICE of Deposition of Sam Brower, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
163 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery re Discovery Responses by Colorado City, Town of . (Matura, Jeffrey) *Modified to new event on 8/15/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 08/14/2013)
164 NOTICE of Deposition of Phillip Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
165 NOTICE of Deposition of Curtis Cooke, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
166 NOTICE of Deposition of Guy Timpson, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
167 NOTICE of Deposition of Sam Johnson, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
168 NOTICE re Service of US Preliminary Witness List − First Supplement by United States of America . (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
169 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
170 *NOTICE of Continued Deposition (Amended) of William Jessop, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) *Modified to add text on 8/26/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 08/23/2013)
171 NOTICE re Certificate of Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum by Hildale, City of . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
172 NOTICE re Certificate of Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum by Hildale, City of . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
173 NOTICE of Deposition of Raymon Christensen, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
174 NOTICE of Deposition of Randy Servis, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
175 NOTICE of Deposition of Gary Maschner, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
176 NOTICE of Deposition of Bruce Wisan, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
177 NOTICE of Deposition of Genevive Hainline, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
178 NOTICE of Deposition of Suzette Bateman, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
179 NOTICE of Deposition of Steven Bateman, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
180 NOTICE of Deposition of Shem Fischer, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
181 NOTICE of Deposition of Ruby Jessop, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
182 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
183 NOTICE re Service of Subpoena by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 09/05/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 18 of 89

09/05/2013 09/05/2013
09/05/2013 09/06/2013
09/06/2013 09/06/2013 09/06/2013 09/06/2013 09/06/2013 09/06/2013 09/06/2013 09/10/2013 09/11/2013 09/11/2013
09/13/2013
09/13/2013 09/16/2013

184 NOTICE of Deposition of Isaac Jeffs; Nephi Jeffs, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
185 MOTION to Compel Deposition Evidence Regarding Religious Information by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
186 MOTION to Expedite Consideration of United States' Motion to Compel Deposition Evidence by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
187 ORDER Plaintiff moves for expedited consideration 186 of its motion to compel 185 . The motion for expedited consideration is granted. The timing of the filing of the foregoing motions will make it difficult (but not impossible) for a decision to be rendered by the close of business on September 17, 2013. In the latter regard, the court understands that depositions of defendants' employees will start September 18, 2013; and it may be that the court will be unable to get a decision to the parties before September 18, 2013. Defendants' response to the motion to compel deposition evidence regarding religious information shall be served and filed on or before the close of business on September 11, 2013. Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be served and filed so as to be available to the court no later than 9:00 a.m. (Alaska Daylight Time) on September 16, 2013. (KMG) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
188 NOTICE of Deposition of Haven Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
189 NOTICE of Deposition of Carlos Jessop, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
190 NOTICE of Deposition of Joseph Allred, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
191 NOTICE of Deposition of Lovisa White, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
192 NOTICE of Deposition of Kimball Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
193 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
194 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
195 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
196 RESPONSE in Opposition re 185 MOTION to Compel Deposition Evidence Regarding Religious Information filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 5)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
197 RESPONSE in Opposition re 185 MOTION to Compel Deposition Evidence Regarding Religious Information filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
198 MOTION for Protective Order by Ronald Cooke, Jinjer Cooke, Seth Cooke. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, William) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
199 MOTION to Expedite Motion to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Protective Order by Jinjer Cooke, Ronald Cooke, Seth Cooke. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, William) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
200 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS re 185 MOTION to Compel Deposition Evidence Regarding Religious Information. The court will not entertain oral argument on the foregoing motion at this time. The court expects to orally announce a decision on the motion to compel at 1:30 p.m. Alaska Daylight Time (2:30 p.m. in Arizona) on

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 19 of 89

09/16/2013 09/16/2013
09/16/2013
09/17/2013 09/17/2013 09/17/2013
09/17/2013 09/18/2013
09/18/2013 09/18/2013 09/19/2013 09/23/2013 09/23/2013 09/24/2013

Tuesday, September 17, 2013. See Order for Details. (MAP) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
201 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Compel by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
202 *Filed at Doc. 223 *LODGED Proposed United States' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Compel Deposition Evidence Regarding Religious Information re: 201 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Compel . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4)(Donnelly, Matthew) *Modified on 9/27/2013 (MAP)*. (Entered: 09/16/2013)
203 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS re 198 MOTION for Protective Order. In light of the fact that the Cooke depositions are scheduled for October 8 and 9, 2013, proceedings with respect to this motion will be expedited. Any party may respond to the motion at or before 9:00 a.m. local time for counsel on September 23, 2013. Movants may reply on or before the close of business local time September 25, 2013. (MAP) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
204 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
205 ORDER granting 185 the Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 9/17/2013. (See PDF for full details.)(KMG) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
212 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Court and counsel heard court's decision on record re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt 185 ); GRANTED. Court offered to fax parties court's oral ruling. Court and counsel heard re defendant's oral motion to extend filing time for all parties' response to the expedited pending motion for protective order from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday local time; GRANTED. (ECRO Suzannette David−Waters.) Hearing held 1:32 PM to 1:50 PM.(KMG) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
223 REPLY to Opposition to Motion re 185 MOTION to Compel Deposition Evidence Regarding Religious Information filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4)(MAP) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
206 REVISED ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − The Cooke Deponents move for a protective order with respect to their proposed depositions. In light of the fact that the Cooke depositions are scheduled for October 8 and 9, 2013, proceedings with respect to this motion will be expedited. Any party may respond to the motion at or before 5:00 p.m. local time for counsel on September 23, 2013. Movants may reply on or before the close of business local time September 26, 2013. (KMG) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
207 NOTICE of Deposition of Am'd Jerold Nathan Williams, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
208 NOTICE of Deposition of Am'd Lorin Holm, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
209 STRICKEN by doc.#221...RESPONSE to Motion re 198 MOTION for Protective Order of Deponents Ronald Cooke, Jinjer Cooke and Seth Cooke filed by Arizona, State of. (Kane, Sandra) Modified on 9/27/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 09/19/2013)
210 RESPONSE to Motion re 198 MOTION for Protective Order of Deponents Ronald Cooke, Jinjer Cooke and Seth Cooke filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
211 RESPONSE in Opposition re 198 MOTION for Protective Order and Request to Strike the State of Arizona's Response filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
213 NOTICE of Deposition of Am'd Jerold Nathan Williams, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/24/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 20 of 89

09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/25/2013
09/25/2013
09/26/2013 09/27/2013 09/27/2013 09/27/2013 10/04/2013 10/07/2013
10/14/2013 10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/25/2013 10/25/2013

214 NOTICE re of Service of Discovery by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
215 REPLY to Response to Motion re 198 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Jinjer Cooke, Ronald Cooke, Seth Cooke. (Walker, William) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
216 NOTICE of Deposition of Lorin Holm [Amended], filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
217 *REPLY to Colorado City's Motion to Strike State's Response in Support of Cooke Deponents' Motion 198 for Protective Order by Interested Party Arizona, State of. (Kane, Sandra) *Document duplicate of entry of (doc.#215); modified on 9/26/2013 (KMG). Modified on 9/26/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 09/25/2013)
218 RESPONSE to Colorado City's Request 211 to Strike State of Arizona's Response in Support of Motion for Protective Order of Deponents Ronald Cooke, Jinjer Cooke and Seth Cooke by Interested Party Arizona, State of. (Kane, Sandra) *Modified to correct event and document relationship on 9/26/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 09/25/2013)
219 NOTICE re Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
220 NOTICE of Deposition of Gary Maschner, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
221 ORDER The motion 198 for protective order is denied. The State's joinder in the deponents' motion for protective order is stricken. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 9/27/2013.(KMG) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
222 NOTICE re subpoenas for Lyle Jeffs by United States of America . (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
224 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
225 ORDER granting 224 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, Discovery is due 6/30/14 and Dispositive Motions are due 8/18/14, see PDF document for details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/7/13.(LSP) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
226 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/14/2013)
227 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
228 NOTICE of Deposition of Ruby Jessop, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
229 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
230 NOTICE re Service of Hildale Defendants' Supplemental Response to United States' First Set of Requests for Production by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
231 NOTICE re Service of Hildale Defendants' Response to United States' Third Set of Requests for Production by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
232 NOTICE of Deposition of Isaac Jeffs and Nephi Jeffs, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
233 NOTICE re Service of Hildale Defendants' Response to United States' Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendants City of Hildale, Twin City Water Authority and Twin City Power by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/25/2013)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 21 of 89

10/28/2013 11/08/2013
11/13/2013 11/15/2013 11/15/2013 11/22/2013 11/25/2013 12/02/2013 12/02/2013 12/02/2013 12/02/2013 12/02/2013 12/03/2013 12/05/2013
12/05/2013 12/09/2013
12/09/2013
12/10/2013
12/11/2013

234 NOTICE re Service of the US Third Supplemental Responses to Hildale Defendants First Request for Production by United States of America . (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
235 *Notice of Service of Discovery re Hildale Defendants' Supplemental Response To United States' First Set Of Interrogatories To Defendants City Of Hildale Twin City Water Authority, And Twin City Power by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) *Modified to correct event type on 11/12/2013 (ALS). (Entered: 11/08/2013)
236 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
237 NOTICE of Deposition of Helaman Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
238 MOTION to Quash SUBPOENAS TO NEPHI AND ISAAC JEFFS by Nephi Jeffs, Isaac Jeffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Piccarreta, Michael) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
239 NOTICE re Fourth Supplemental Initial Disclosures by United States of America . (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
240 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
241 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
242 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
243 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
244 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
245 RESPONSE in Opposition re 238 MOTION to Quash SUBPOENAS TO NEPHI AND ISAAC JEFFS filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − D)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
246 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
247 *NOTICE re 238 of Certification of Compliance with Rule 7.2(j) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court by Isaac Jeffs, Nephi Jeffs. (Piccarreta, Michael) *Modified to correct event and document relationship on 12/6/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 12/05/2013)
248 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
249 REPLY to Response to Motion re 238 MOTION to Quash SUBPOENAS TO NEPHI AND ISAAC JEFFS filed by Isaac Jeffs, Nephi Jeffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Piccarreta, Michael) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
250 * MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation for Reply 249 to Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Nephi and Isaac Jeffs by Isaac Jeffs, Nephi Jeffs. (Piccarreta, Michael) *Modified to include document relationship on 12/10/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 12/09/2013)
251 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − The court is in receipt of movants Nephi and Isaac Jeffs' motion 250 to exceed page limitation for their reply to opposition to motion to quash subpoenas. The motion to exceed page limitation is granted as to the movants' reply filed December 9, 2013.(KMG) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
252 NOTICE re of Re−scheduling of Depositions by United States of America re 238 MOTION to Quash SUBPOENAS TO NEPHI AND ISAAC JEFFS . (Keveney,

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 22 of 89

12/12/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/23/2013
12/23/2013 12/30/2013
12/30/2013 01/02/2014 01/06/2014 01/07/2014 01/10/2014

Sean) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
253 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
254 NOTICE of Deposition of Brock Belnap, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
255 NOTICE of Deposition of Jesseca Jessop, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
256 NOTICE of Deposition of Mike Hoggard, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
257 NOTICE of Deposition of Am'd Jerold Nathan Williams, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
258 NOTICE of Deposition of Am'd William Jessop, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
259 NOTICE of Deposition of Gary Engels, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
260 NOTICE of Deposition of Al Acosta, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
261 NOTICE of Deposition of Am'd Suzette Steed, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
262 NOTICE of Deposition of Am'd Steven Bateman, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
263 NOTICE of Deposition of Am'd Genevive Hainline, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
264 NOTICE of Deposition of Am'd Bruce Wisan, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
265 NOTICE of Deposition of Am'd Lorin Holm, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
266 NOTICE of Deposition of Am'd Shem Fischer, filed by Hildale, City of. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
267 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 238 Motion to Quash. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 12/23/13. (LAD) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
268 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
269 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery re Service of Subpoena by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) *Modified to correct event on 12/30/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 12/30/2013)
270 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
271 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
272 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
273 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
274 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 01/10/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 23 of 89

01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 02/03/2014 02/03/2014 02/03/2014 02/06/2014 02/10/2014 02/10/2014
02/12/2014
02/19/2014 02/19/2014 02/19/2014
02/20/2014

275 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
276 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
277 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
278 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
279 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
280 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
281 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
282 NOTICE of Deposition of Vincen Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
283 NOTICE of Deposition of Brian Meldrum, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
284 NOTICE of Deposition of David Darger, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
285 Motion for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to LRCiv 83.1(b)(2) by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) Modified on 2/6/2014 (BAS). (Entered: 02/06/2014)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX142860 as to J Michael Hansen. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
286 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 285 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
287 MOTION for Protective Order by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A" Certification Of R. Blake Hamilton In Support Of The Motion Of Hildale Defendants For Protective Order, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit "A" To Certification Of R. Blake Hamilton, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit "B" To Certification Of R. Blake Hamilton, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit "C" To Certification, # 5 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Hansen, J) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
288 MOTION for Protective Order and Request for Sanctions by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
289 REQUEST re: for Discovery Conference to Extend Discovery Deadlines by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
290 MOTION to Expedite Relief on Defendant Colorado City's Motion for Protective Order and Request for a Discovery Conference to Extend Discovery Deadlines by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
291 MOTION Motion For Expedited Relief On The Motion Of The Hildale Defendants For Protective Order re: 287 MOTION for Protective Order by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hansen, J) (Entered: 02/20/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 24 of 89

02/20/2014 02/20/2014
02/22/2014 02/24/2014 02/26/2014
02/26/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 03/04/2014 03/05/2014 03/05/2014 03/05/2014

292 *Joinder re: 289 Request In Defendant Colorado City's Request For A Discovery Conference To Extend Discovery Deadlines by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hansen, J) *Modified to correct event on 2/21/2014 (KMG). (Entered: 02/20/2014)
293 ORDER re Motions for Protective Order − The court insists that counsel for plaintiff and counsel for the Town and City confer and reexamine the scheduling of all remaining discovery in this case, including the rescheduling of depositions noticed for February 21 and 28 and March 7, 2014. Counsel shall confer with respect to the foregoing on or before February 24, 2014, and report the results of that conference to the court by February 26, 2014. If counsel have not resolved the differences which have given rise to the motions for protective orders, counsel for all parties shall make themselves available for a telephonic discovery conference (on the record) at 9:00 a.m. Alaska Standard Time, February 28, 2014. In consideration of the foregoing, the depositions scheduled for February 21 and 28 in St. George, Utah, are vacated. The Town and City's respective motions for expedited relief are granted as set out above. The Town and City's requests for discovery conference are granted. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 2/20/2014. (See Order for full details.)(KMG) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
294 Second MOTION to Compel Deposition Evidence Regarding Religious Information by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 LRCiv 37.1 − K. Barlow, # 2 LRCiv 37.1 − J. Allred, # 3 LRCiv 37.1 − H. Barlow, # 4 K. Barlow Depo., # 5 J. Allred Depo., # 6 H. Barlow Depos., # 7 W. Jessop Depos., # 8 G. Timpson Depo., # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 02/22/2014)
295 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
296 MOTION Under Rule 36(a)(6) To Declare Matters Admitted, Or In The Alternative, To Compel Amended Responses to Requests for Admission by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Set of Requests for Admission, # 2 Exhibit Third Set of Requests for Admission, # 3 Exhibit Letter from Gzifa to Matura, # 4 Exhibit E−mail from Crockett to Matura, # 5 Exhibit V. Barlow Deposition, # 6 Exhibit G. Maschner Deposition, # 7 Exhibit In the Matter of the Peace Officer Certification of F. Barlow, # 8 Exhibit H. Barlow Deposition, # 9 Exhibit G. Timpson Deposition, # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
297 NOTICE re: STATUS OF DISCOVERY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by United States of America re: 293 Order on Motion to Expedite, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Joinder . (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
298 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
299 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of. (Hansen, J) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
300 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Discovery Conference held on 2/28/2014. Court and counsel heard re deadlines for expert discovery, depositions, and dispositive motions. Counsel to provide the Court with a proposed Order setting out deadlines established on the record. (ECRO Robin Carter.) Hearing held 9:00AM to 9:22AM.(KMG) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
301 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
302 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
303 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
304 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/05/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 25 of 89

03/07/2014 03/07/2014 03/07/2014 03/10/2014 03/10/2014 03/11/2014 03/11/2014
03/11/2014
03/11/2014 03/12/2014 03/13/2014 03/13/2014 03/13/2014 03/13/2014 03/13/2014 03/17/2014

305 MOTION Alternative Service of Subpoena by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−5)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
306 MOTION non−electronic filing of exhibit re: 305 MOTION Alternative Service of Subpoena by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
307 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 305 MOTION Alternative Service of Subpoena Proposed Order by Plaintiff United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
308 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − In accordance with court minutes, counsel will please submit their proposed order formalizing the schedule for the completion of discovery and for motion practice in this case. (KMG) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
309 NOTICE re: of Proposed Discovery Order by United States of America re: 300 Discovery Hearing . (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
310 RESPONSE to Motion re: 294 Second MOTION to Compel Deposition Evidence Regarding Religious Information filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
311 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − Plaintiff United States moved this court for leave to non−electronically file Exhibit 5 to its Motion for Alternative Service on Fred J. Barlow. The United States motion 306 is granted. The United States shall send a copy of Exhibit 5 to the clerk's office, with copies to all counsel, and shall comply with Section II.M.2 of the court's Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.(KMG) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
312 ORDER − Regarding Discovery Deadlines as follows: Final Witness Lists − June 30, 2014; Close of Fact Discovery − July 31, 2014; Expert Witness Disclosures −July 31, 2014; Discovery Motions (excluding Expert) − August 15, 2014; Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures − August 29, 2014; Close of Expert Discovery − October 15, 2014; Dispositive Motions − 30 days after the later of close of all discovery or discovery motion ruling; Motions in limine regarding Experts − 45 days after Dispositive Motion filing date. The court warns counsel that requests for additional extensions will not likely be granted. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/11/2014. (KMG) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
313 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 294 Second MOTION to Compel Deposition Evidence Regarding Religious Information filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment "A")(Hansen, J) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
Disk of Exhibit 5 is received and stored in the Phoenix file room. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CAD) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
314 NOTICE of Deposition of Brian Meldrum, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
315 NOTICE of Deposition of Josephine Steed, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
316 NOTICE of Deposition of David Darger, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
317 NOTICE of Deposition of Vincen Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
318 NOTICE of Deposition of Brian Jessop, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
319 RESPONSE to Motion re: 296 MOTION Under Rule 36(a)(6) To Declare Matters Admitted, Or In The Alternative, To Compel Amended Responses to Requests for Admission filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/17/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 26 of 89

03/21/2014 03/27/2014
03/27/2014
03/31/2014
04/01/2014 04/01/2014 04/04/2014 04/04/2014 04/09/2014
04/09/2014 04/17/2014 04/17/2014 04/18/2014 04/18/2014 04/23/2014 05/06/2014 05/07/2014

320 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 294 Second MOTION to Compel Deposition Evidence Regarding Religious Information filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 03/21/2014)
321 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 296 MOTION Under Rule 36(a)(6) To Declare Matters Admitted, Or In The Alternative, To Compel Amended Responses to Requests for Admission filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
322 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 294 Second Motion to Compel, the depositions of Kimball Barlow, Joseph Allred, and Helaman Barlow may be reopened and deponents are compelled to answer the questions that they refused to answer as well as any additional related questions (see order for further details). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/27/14.(REW) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
323 ORDER Plaintiff's motion 296 for an order declaring certain matters admitted is denied. Plaintiff's alternative motion compelling defendant Colorado City to respond more fully to plaintiff's first and third requests for admissions is granted. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/31/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
324 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
325 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
326 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Abke, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
327 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Abke, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
328 ORDER Plaintiff's motion 305 to serve Fred J. Barlow with a deposition subpoena is granted. Service shall be attempted by certified mail, "deliver to addressee only," return receipt requested. Inasmuch as Mr. Barlow has been shown to be actively evading the service, it is a virtual certainty that he will refuse to accept a certified letter. Therefore, plaintiff is authorized to and shall also attempt service by Federal Express. Plaintiff shall request that Federal Express provide some form of proof of delivery. Finally, plaintiff shall also mail the subpoena by ordinary United States mail. If any of the foregoing results in the appearance of Mr. Barlow for a deposition, the job of the subpoena will have been accomplished. If any one of the foregoing causes Mr. Barlow to challenge the service of the subpoena, then the court can address that issue. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 4/9/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
329 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
330 NOTICE of Deposition of Helaman Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
331 NOTICE of Deposition of Am'd Gary Engels, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
332 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
333 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
334 NOTICE of Deposition of Lyle Jeffs and Vergel Steed, filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
335 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/FIRM NAME by R Blake Hamilton. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
336 NOTICE of Deposition of Twin City Water Works, Inc., filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 05/07/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 27 of 89

05/07/2014 05/07/2014 05/07/2014 05/07/2014 05/07/2014 05/07/2014 05/07/2014 05/07/2014 05/08/2014
05/09/2014 05/09/2014 05/09/2014 05/09/2014 05/09/2014 05/09/2014 05/09/2014 05/09/2014
05/12/2014
05/19/2014 05/20/2014

337 NOTICE re: Service of Subpoena by United States of America on State Bank of Southern Utah. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
338 NOTICE of Deposition of Al Acosta, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
339 NOTICE of Deposition of Bruce Wisan, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
340 NOTICE of Deposition of Genevive Hainline, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
341 NOTICE of Deposition of Lorin Holm, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
342 NOTICE of Deposition of Shem Fischer, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
343 NOTICE of Deposition of Steven Bateman, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
344 NOTICE of Deposition of Suzette Steed Bateman, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
345 EX PARTE MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Of Peter Stirba; J. Michael Hansen; Kathleen Abke And The Firm Of Stirba, P.C. by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A" Request And Authorization To Release File, Other Legal Documents And Trust Funds, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Hansen, J) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
346 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
347 NOTICE of Deposition of Lorin Fischer, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
348 NOTICE of Deposition of Ladell Bistline, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
349 NOTICE of Deposition of Vergel Steed, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
350 NOTICE of Deposition of Warren Darger, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
351 NOTICE of Deposition of Fred Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
352 NOTICE of Deposition of Warren Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
353 MOTION for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1−28, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
354 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS The ex parte motion 345 of Peter Stirba, J. Michael Hansen, Kathleen Abke, and the Firm of Stirba, P.C., to withdraw as counsel for the Hildale Defendants, filed May 8, 2014, is granted. Peter Stirba, J. Michael Hansen, Kathleen Abke, and the firm of Stirba P.C., are hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel for defendants City of Hildale, Utah, Twin City Power, and Twin City Water Authority, Inc., in the above−captioned action.(KMG) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
355 NOTICE of Deposition of Isaac Jeffs and Nephi Jeffs, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
356 NOTICE OF WAIVER OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE, counsel for Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hansen, J) (Entered: 05/20/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 28 of 89

05/20/2014
05/21/2014 05/22/2014 05/22/2014 05/27/2014 06/03/2014 06/03/2014 06/03/2014 06/03/2014 06/03/2014 06/03/2014 06/03/2014 06/03/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/11/2014

357 MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM THE TOWN OF COLORADO CITY UNDER RULE 37(a) by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1.LRCiv 37.1(a) Attachment Deficient Responses to Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit 2.LRCiv 37.1(a) Attachment Deficient Responses to Requests for Production, # 3 Exhibit 3.Letter from Jessica C. Crockett, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, to Jeffrey C. Matura, Counsel for Colorado City (Aug. 21, 2013), # 4 Exhibit 4.Letter from Jessica C. Crockett, to Jeffrey C. Matura, (Oct. 23, 2013), # 5 Exhibit 5.Email from Jessica C. Crockett, to Jeffrey C. Matura (Jan. 8, 2014), # 6 Exhibit 6.Excerpt of Joseph Allred Deposition (Sept. 19, 2013), # 7 Exhibit 7.Excerpt of Guy Timpson Deposition (Aug. 23, 2013), # 8 Exhibit 8.Excerpt of Willie Jessop Deposition (October 30, 2013), # 9 Exhibit 9.Excerpt of Colorado Citys Third Supplemental Response to State of Arizonas First Request for Production, # 10 Exhibit 10.Minutes of Town Council Meeting (Jan. 17, 2012), # 11 Exhibit Excerpt of David Darger Deposition (Apr. 11, 2014), # 12 Exhibit 12.Excerpt of Helaman Barlow Deposition (April 22, 2014), # 13 Exhibit Excerpt of Kimball Barlow Deposition (Sept. 20, 2013), # 14 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
358 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
359 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
360 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
361 RESPONSE to Motion re: 353 MOTION for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−8)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
362 NOTICE of Deposition of Sgt. Mike Hoggard, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
363 NOTICE of Deposition of Sally Stubbs, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
364 NOTICE of Deposition of Shane Stubbs, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
365 NOTICE of Deposition of William E. Timpson, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
366 NOTICE of Deposition of Justin Cooke, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
367 NOTICE of Deposition of Ezra Draper, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
368 NOTICE of Deposition of James Barlow, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
369 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
370 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 353 MOTION for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
371 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
372 RESPONSE to Motion re: 357 MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM THE TOWN OF COLORADO CITY UNDER RULE 37(a) filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
373 NOTICE of Deposition of Lyle Jeffs, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/11/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 29 of 89

06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/16/2014 06/16/2014 06/16/2014
06/20/2014 06/20/2014 06/20/2014 06/23/2014 06/23/2014 06/23/2014
06/25/2014 06/27/2014 06/27/2014

374 NOTICE of Deposition of Joseph Allred, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
375 NOTICE of Deposition of Shem Jessop, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
376 NOTICE of Deposition of Vance Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
377 NOTICE of Deposition of Lovisa White, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
378 NOTICE of Deposition of Phillip Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
379 NOTICE of Deposition of Jerry Darger, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
380 NOTICE of Deposition of Carlos Jessop, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
381 NOTICE of Deposition of Leonard Black, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
382 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
383 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
384 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 357 MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM THE TOWN OF COLORADO CITY UNDER RULE 37(a) filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Colorado City's Sixth Supp. Response to U.S. First Set of RFPs)(Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
385 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
386 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
387 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
388 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Rick D Bonewell on behalf of David Darger, Daniel Steed, Josephine Roundy, and Sara Barlow. (BAS) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX147375 as to Rick D Bonewell. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
389 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 388 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
390 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery re Tenth Supplemental Initial Disclosures by United States of America . (Gzifa, Anika) *Modified to correct event type on 6/26/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 06/25/2014)
391 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
392 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 06/27/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 30 of 89

06/27/2014 06/27/2014 06/27/2014 06/27/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014
06/30/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/02/2014 07/03/2014

393 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
394 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
395 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
396 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
397 NOTICE of Deposition of Willie Jessop, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
398 *Amended NOTICE of Deposition of William E. Jessop filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) *Modified text on 6/30/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 06/30/2014)
399 NOTICE of Deposition of Sgt. Mike Hoggard, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
400 NOTICE of Deposition of Twin City Water Authority, filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
401 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
402 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
403 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
404 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
405 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
406 *NOTICE of Continued Deposition of Curtis Cookeby United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) *Modified to correct event on 7/1/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 07/01/2014)
407 *NOTICE of Continued Deposition of Vance Barlow by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) *Modified to correct event on 7/1/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 07/01/2014)
408 *NOTICE of Deposition of Marv Wilson by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) *Modified to correct event on 7/1/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 07/01/2014)
409 *NOTICE of Deposition of Brian Zitting by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) *Modified to correct event on 7/1/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 07/01/2014)
410 *NOTICE of Deposition of Hyrum Roundy by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) *Modified to correct event on 7/1/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 07/01/2014)
411 *NOTICE of Continued Deposition of David Darger by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) *Modified to correct event on 7/1/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 07/01/2014)
412 NOTICE of Deposition of Sam Johnson, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
413 NOTICE of Deposition of Shem Jessop, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
414 NOTICE of Deposition of Haven Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
415 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 07/03/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 31 of 89

07/03/2014 07/07/2014 07/07/2014 07/08/2014 07/08/2014 07/08/2014 07/08/2014 07/09/2014 07/09/2014 07/09/2014 07/11/2014
07/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/15/2014 07/16/2014 07/16/2014 07/16/2014 07/16/2014 07/17/2014

416 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
417 NOTICE of Deposition of Dowayne Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
418 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
419 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
420 NOTICE of Deposition of Genevieve Hainline, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
421 NOTICE of Deposition of Jonathan Roundy, filed by United States of America. (Gzifa, Anika) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
422 NOTICE re: Service of Hildale Defendants' Amended Final Witness List by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
423 OBJECTION re: 400 Notice of Deposition of 30(b)(6) of Twin City Water Authority by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
424 NOTICE of Deposition of Lawrence Barlow, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
425 NOTICE of Deposition of Ron Rohbock, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
426 ORDER Plaintiff's motion 357 to compel is granted in part and denied in part. Colorado City is compelled to provide supplemental responses as set out above on or before August 1, 2014. To the extent that Colorado City is claiming privilege as to any of the discovery requests that are the subject of the instant motion, it must file a privilege log on or before August 1, 2014, or the privilege will be deemed waived. Although the close of fact discovery in this case is currently July 31, 2014, and although the court previously warned the parties that an extension of this deadline would likely not be granted, the court will extend the close of fact discovery until August 25, 2014 in order to give plaintiff time to review the supplement responses and to file any necessary motions. If the parties believe any other discovery deadlines should be extended as a result of the extension of fact discovery, they may file a proposed schedule for the court's consideration. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 7/11/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
427 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
428 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
429 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
430 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
431 VERIFIED MOTION for Protective Order by Haven Barlow. (MAP) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
432 NOTICE of Deposition of Rich Fordham, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
433 NOTICE of Deposition of Thomas Jeffs, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
434 NOTICE of Deposition of Willie Jessop, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/17/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 32 of 89

07/22/2014 07/23/2014
07/28/2014 07/28/2014
07/28/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014 08/01/2014 08/01/2014 08/01/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014

435 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Expert Disclosure Deadlines by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
436 ORDER (Revised Disclosure Deadline) Defendants' unopposed Motion 435 to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines, filed July 22,2014, is granted. Accordingly, the scheduling and planning order, as previously amended,is further revised as to the following deadlines: Expert Witness Disclosures: now due August 25, 2014; Discovery Motions (Non−Expert): now due September 15, 2014; Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: now due September 30, 2014; Close of Expert Discovery: now due November 14, 2014; All other deadlines, including deadlines for dispositive motions or motions in limine regarding experts, remain as follows: Dispositive Motions: 30 days after the later of the close of all discovery or discovery motion ruling. Motions in Limine for Experts: 45 days after dispositive motion filing date. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 7/23/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 07/23/2014)
437 RESPONSE to Motion re: 431 MOTION for Protective Order filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
438 ORDER that plaintiff's 353 Motion for Sanctions is granted as to plaintiffs' first request, with which Colorado City has already complied, and as to the second request but is denied as to the third and fourth requests. Colorado City shall provide plaintiff with the list of altered police reports and how they were altered, or copies of the unaltered reports, on or before August 18, 2014. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 7/28/2014.(LFIG) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
439 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Haven Barlow, Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
440 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS granting 439 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to 431 MOTION for Protective Order; defendants shall have until August 1, 2014, to file their response(s) and movant Barlow shall have until August 8, 2014, to file his reply. (LSP) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
441 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
442 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
443 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
444 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
445 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
446 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
447 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) *Document is not in compliance with LRCiv 5.2; attorney notified on 8/4/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 08/01/2014)
448 RESPONSE to Motion re: 431 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Article, "Flora Jessop: The Troubled Woman Who Cost Texas $14 million")(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
449 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
450 NOTICE of Deposition of Genevieve Hainline, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/07/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 33 of 89

08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/11/2014 08/13/2014 08/20/2014
08/25/2014 08/25/2014 08/25/2014 08/25/2014 08/25/2014 08/25/2014 08/25/2014 08/25/2014 08/25/2014 09/08/2014 09/09/2014 09/12/2014 09/12/2014
09/12/2014
09/15/2014

451 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
452 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
453 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 431 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Haven Barlow. (KMG) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
454 NOTICE of Deposition of Rich Fordham, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
455 ORDER Deponent Haven Barlow moved pro se for a protective order 431 . The United States has responded, as have the defendants. Mr. Barlow is now represented by counsel. His attorney and counsel for plaintiff have reached an agreement that resolves Mr. Barlow's concerns set forth in his motion for protective order. In light of the foregoing, the motion for protective order is moot and is therefore denied. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 8/20/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
456 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
457 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
458 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
459 NOTICE of Deposition of Vance Barlow, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
460 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
461 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
462 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
463 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
464 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
465 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
466 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
467 MOTION for Order to Show Cause by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
468 MOTION to Enforce the Scheduling Order by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoenas, # 2 Exhibit Emails, # 3 Exhibit U.S. Initial Discl. 11th Supp., # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
469 *MOTION to Strike Portions of Defendants' Witness Lists by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−6, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) *Modified on 9/15/2014 to Seal Exhibits Only Pending the Filing of a Motion to Seal (MAP)*. (Entered: 09/12/2014)
470 MOTION to Compel Executive Session Meeting Minutes against Defendants by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − G. Timpson Dep., # 2 Exhibit 2 − D. Darger Dep., # 3 Exhibit 3 − H. Barlow Dep., # 4 Exhibit 4 − Emails Among Counsel, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Privilege Log, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 09/15/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 34 of 89

09/15/2014 09/15/2014 09/15/2014 09/15/2014 09/17/2014 09/22/2014 09/23/2014 09/23/2014
09/26/2014 09/26/2014 09/29/2014 09/29/2014 09/29/2014
09/29/2014

471 MOTION to Compel response to Subpoena DT by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
472 MOTION to Compel State of Arizona to Produce Documents in Response to Subpoena Duces Tecum by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−5, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
473 MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony from Officer Curtis Cooke by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit LRCiv 37.1(a) Attachment, # 2 Exhibit Depositon Excerpts, # 3 Exhibit Decl. Re. Attorney's Fees, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
474 MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony from Vergel Steed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit LRCiv 37.1(a) Attachment, # 2 Exhibit Depositon Excerpts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
475 MOTION to Seal Document 469 MOTION to Strike Portions of Defendants' Witness Lists by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−6, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
476 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Ashley M Gregson on behalf of Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, and Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (BAS) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX150568 as to Ashley M Gregson. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
477 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 476 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
478 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 472 MOTION to Compel State of Arizona to Produce Documents in Response to Subpoena Duces Tecum and State of Arizona's Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Keogh, Brad) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
479 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
480 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plaintiff's 468 MOTION to Enforce the Scheduling Order by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A; September 9, 2014 Letter, # 2 Exhibit B; Correspondence from R. Blake Hamilton, # 3 Exhibit C; September 12, 2014 Letter)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
481 *OBJECTION to Hildale Defendants' Motion re 471 to Compel the United Effort Plan Trust to Produce Documents in Response to Subpoena/Request for Attorney's Fees by Objector United Effort Plan Trust. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−4)(Walker, William) *Modified to include document relationship on 9/30/2014 (KMG). (Entered: 09/29/2014)
482 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plaintiff's 469 MOTION to Strike Portions of Defendants' Witness Lists by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A; Hildale Defendants' Preliminary Witness List, # 2 Exhibit B; Letters from R. Blake Hamilton, # 3 Exhibit C; August 7, 2014 Letter from R. Blake Hamilton, # 4 Exhibit D; Plaintiff's Preliminary Witness List, # 5 Exhibit E; Deposition of Willie Jessop)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
483 RESPONSE to Motion re: 469 MOTION to Strike Portions of Defendants' Witness Lists filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/29/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 35 of 89

09/29/2014 09/30/2014 10/02/2014 10/02/2014
10/02/2014 10/02/2014 10/02/2014
10/02/2014 10/03/2014 10/06/2014 10/06/2014 10/07/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014
10/09/2014

484 RESPONSE to Motion re: 467 MOTION for Order to Show Cause filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 and 2)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
485 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
486 RESPONSE to Motion re: 474 MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony from Vergel Steed filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 through 3)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
487 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Against Defendants Under Rule 37(a) by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A; First Set of Document Requests, # 2 Exhibit B; Partial Responses to First Set of Document Requests, # 3 Exhibit C; Response to United States' Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
488 RESPONSE to Motion re: 475 MOTION to Seal Document 469 MOTION to Strike Portions of Defendants' Witness Lists filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
489 RESPONSE to Motion re: 470 MOTION to Compel Executive Session Meeting Minutes against Defendants filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 and 2)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
490 MEMORANDUM/RESPONSE in Opposition to Plaintiff's re 473 Motion to Compel Deposition Evidence from Officer Curtis Cooke Regarding Religious Information by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A; Memorandum Decision and Order, # 2 Exhibit B; Affidavit of Curtis Cooke)(Hamilton, R) *Modified to include document relationship on 10/3/2014 (KMG). (Entered: 10/02/2014)
491 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 472 MOTION to Compel State of Arizona to Produce Documents in Response to Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
492 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 470 MOTION to Compel Executive Session Meeting Minutes against Defendants by Plaintiff United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
493 Joint MOTION to Strike 492 Additional Attachments to Main Document by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
494 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 472 MOTION to Compel State of Arizona to Produce Documents in Response to Subpoena Duces Tecum and Response to the State of Arizona's Motion to Quash filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
495 MOTION for Extension of Time To File Reply Briefs by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
496 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 469 MOTION to Strike Portions of Defendants' Witness Lists filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
497 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 467 MOTION for Order to Show Cause filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
498 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − The court is in receipt of the United States' unopposed motion 495 filed October 7, 2014, for a one−week extension of time to file reply briefs in connection with its motions to compel the deposition testimony of Curtis Cooke and Vergel Steed. The motion is granted and the reply briefs are now due October 21, 2014.(KMG) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
499 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 468 MOTION to Enforce the Scheduling Order filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 10/09/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 36 of 89

10/09/2014
10/09/2014
10/14/2014 10/14/2014
10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/16/2014 10/16/2014 10/16/2014 10/16/2014 10/16/2014 10/16/2014 10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/27/2014

500 *ERRATA filed at doc.# 501 ... REPLY to Response to Motion re: 471 MOTION to Compel response to Subpoena DT filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Hamilton, R) Modified on 10/10/2014 (KMG). (Entered: 10/09/2014)
501 *NOTICE of Errata re: 500 / REPLY to Response to Motion re: 471 MOTION to Compel response to Subpoena DT by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated.. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Reply to Motion to Compel)(Hamilton, R) *Modified to include text/document relationship on 10/10/2014 (KMG). (Entered: 10/09/2014)
502 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 472 MOTION to Compel State of Arizona to Produce Documents in Response to Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
503 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 470 MOTION to Compel Executive Session Meeting Minutes against Defendants , RESPONSE in Opposition re: 493 Joint MOTION to Strike 492 Additional Attachments to Main Document filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − April 15, 2013 Town Council Minutes)(Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
504 NOTICE of Deposition of David Weller, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
505 NOTICE of Deposition of Jack Harris, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
506 NOTICE of Deposition of Lyle Mann, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
507 NOTICE of Deposition of Rosemarie Urbanski, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
508 *REPLY to Response to Motion re: 478 Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by Arizona, State of. (Keogh, Brad) *Modified to correct document relationship on 10/16/2014 (KMG). (Entered: 10/15/2014)
509 NOTICE of Deposition of David Komm, Mark Stratton, and Greg Meyer, filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
510 NOTICE of Deposition of Kenneth L. Spiers, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
511 NOTICE of Deposition of Zachary D. Renstrom, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
512 NOTICE of Deposition of Scott Stephenson, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
513 NOTICE of Deposition of Joseph DeLopez, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
514 NOTICE of Deposition of Mark LoManto, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
515 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 474 MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony from Vergel Steed filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
516 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 473 MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony from Officer Curtis Cooke filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
517 ORDER Plaintiff's motion for an order to show cause is granted 467 . On or before November 10, 2014, Colorado City shall show cause why it should not be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) for failure to obey this court's July 28, 2014, discovery order and/or spoliation of evidence. That showing shall be made in writing, served on other parties, and filed with the court. Plaintiff may respond on or before November 17, 2014, which response shall include plaintiff's suggestion for sanctions. Colorado

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 37 of 89

10/27/2014
10/27/2014
10/27/2014 10/27/2014 10/27/2014
10/28/2014 10/28/2014 10/29/2014 10/29/2014 10/29/2014 11/10/2014 11/10/2014 11/14/2014

City may reply on or before November 24, 2014. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
518 ORDER Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i) expressly provides for the sanction of striking pleadings in whole or in part for not obeying a discovery order or, in this instance, a Rule 16 scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1). Plaintiff's motion to strike the outstanding subpoenas is granted 468 . The four remaining recipients of defendant Hildale's subpoenas are absolved of any responsibility to respond to those subpoenas. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
519 ORDER Plaintiff's motion 469 to strike the Hildale defendants' categorical witness disclosures 73, 77−78, and 80−82 is granted. The Hildale defendants may not call as witnesses at trial any of the persons named in connection with foregoing numbered categorical witness disclosures as set out in the second amended final witness list of August 7, 2014 451 . Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
520 ORDER − The motion 471 to compel the United Effort Plan Trust to produce documents in response to Hildale's subpoena is denied. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
521 ORDER The motion to compel 472 production of documents is denied as to the Arizona Attorney General's criminal division and granted as to the Arizona Attorney General's civil division. Arizona's motion 478 to quash subpoena is denied. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
522 ORDER The defendants' joint motion to strike 493 is denied. Plaintiff's motion 470 to compel is granted. Defendants shall produce for plaintiff the minutes of the executive sessions of their respective councils and boards which took place between January 1, 2005, and the present. Each of the defendants shall provide plaintiff with a privilege log as to any minutes or portions of minutes or attachments thereto which are not produced based upon the attorney−client or work product privileges. Production shall be accomplished on or before November 17, 2014. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
523 ORDER Plaintiff's motion to compel 473 is granted. Plaintiff may re−notice Officer Cooke's deposition. Officer Cooke shall attend the deposition and answer the questions to which he previously took exception as well as related follow−up questions. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/28/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
524 ORDER Plaintiff's motion to compel 474 is granted. Plaintiff may re−notice Mr. Steed's deposition. Mr. Steed shall attend the deposition and answer the questions to which he previously took exception, as well as related follow−up questions. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/28/2014.(KMG) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
525 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS OF H. RUSSEL HOLLAND. ORDERED granting 475 Motion to Seal Exhibits and File Redacted Exhibits. The Exhibits Originally filed September 12, 2014, at Doc. 469 , Shall Remain Sealed, and the Court notes the filing of the Redacted Exhibits Submitted with Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 475 ). (MAP) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
526 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
527 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
528 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
529 *First MOTION for Sanctions Motion Re Sanctions by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit US RFP, # 2 Exhibit Affidavit of Leonard Black, # 3 Exhibit Affidavit of Sam Johnson)(Matura, Jeffrey) *Document is not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(c); Attorney notified on 11/12/2014 (KMG). (Entered: 11/10/2014)
530 NOTICE re: of Service by Arizona, State of re: 521 Order on Motion to Compel . (Ross, Leslie) (Entered: 11/14/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 38 of 89

11/17/2014 11/17/2014
11/17/2014 11/17/2014 11/18/2014 11/24/2014 11/26/2014
12/08/2014 12/15/2014 12/17/2014 12/22/2014 12/22/2014 12/22/2014 12/22/2014 12/22/2014
12/22/2014 12/22/2014

531 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
532 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 529 First MOTION for Sanctions Motion Re Sanctions filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Colorado City Call Log, # 2 Exhibit 2 − US 1st Set of RFPs, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Declaration from Phillip Johnson)(Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
533 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
534 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
535 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
536 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 529 First MOTION for Sanctions Motion Re Sanctions filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
537 ORDER − The Town of Colorado City shall proceed with its ongoing efforts to recover unaltered reports or data showing what changes were made in reports. Counsel for the Town of Colorado City and plaintiff's counsel shall confer and, on or before January 5,2015, provide the court with an updated status report concerning the altered police reports. The Town of Colorado City's motion regarding sanctions and plaintiff's application for sanctions are held in abeyance until January 5, 2015. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 11/26/2014. (KMG) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
538 Joint MOTION to Set Dispositive Motion Deadline by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
539 ORDER The parties' Joint Motion 538 to Set Dispositive Motion Deadline, filed December 8, 2014, is granted. The deadline for the parties to submit dispositive motions is December 22, 2014. (KMG) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
540 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
542 STATEMENT of Facts re: 541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
543 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
544 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count I and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count II Regarding Damages by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
545 STATEMENT of Facts re: 544 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count I and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count II Regarding Damages by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−13)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
546 MOTION to Seal Document by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
547 *FILED at Doc. 551 − SEALED LODGED Proposed The Deposition of William Jessop. Document to be filed by Clerk if 546 Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) *Modified to link to Motion to Seal on 12/23/2014 (SSU). Modified on 12/24/2014 (REW). (Entered: 12/22/2014)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 39 of 89

12/22/2014 12/22/2014
12/24/2014 12/24/2014 12/29/2014
12/29/2014
12/31/2014 12/31/2014 01/05/2015 01/12/2015 01/16/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015
01/26/2015

548 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support Thereof by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
549 STATEMENT of Facts re: 548 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support Thereof by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A; Amended Judgment, # 2 Exhibit B, Articles, # 3 Exhibit C, Agreement, # 4 Exhibit D, Application of Dissolution, # 5 Exhibit E, Amended Articles, # 6 Exhibit F, Operation Agreement, # 7 Exhibit G, Resolution, # 8 Exhibit H, Joint Resolution, # 9 Exhibit I, Initial Disclosures, # 10 Exhibit J, Docket, # 11 Exhibit K, Cookes' Notice, # 12 Exhibit L, Joint Response, # 13 Exhibit M, Deposition of Jesseca Jessop, # 14 Exhibit O, Deposition of Ron Rohbock, # 15 Exhibit P, Deposition of Jerold Williams, # 16 Exhibit Q, Transcript of Isaac Wyler, # 17 Exhibit R, Deposition of Dan Wayman, # 18 Exhibit S, Deposition of Ron Chatwin)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
550 MINUTE ORDER from the Chambers of Judge H Russel Holland. The Hildale Defendants' motion to seal 546 Exhibit "N" to their statement of facts is granted.(REW) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
551 Sealed EXHIBIT N to Statement of Facts 549 filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (REW) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
552 *NOTICE OF APPEAL (INTERLOCUTORY) to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 523 Order on Motion to Compel by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970−11197456. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hamilton, R) *Modified to correct event on 1/5/2015 (KMG). (Entered: 12/29/2014)
553 *NOTICE OF APPEAL (INTERLOCUTORY) to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 524 Order on Motion to Compel by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970−11197610. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hamilton, R) *Modified to correct event on 1/5/2015 (KMG). (Entered: 12/29/2014)
554 USCA Case Number re: 552 Notice of Appeal. Case number 14−17560, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (LAD) (distributed by the Ninth Circuit) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
555 USCA Case Number re: 553 Notice of Appeal. Case number 14−17561, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (LAD) (distributed by the Ninth Circuit) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
556 STATUS REPORT Concerning Altered Police Reports by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−5)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
557 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated for proceedings held on September 17, 2013, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s). (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
558 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS: Plaintiff and Colorado City will please provide the Court with an updated status report on or before February 6, 2015. (LFIG) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
559 RESPONSE to Motion re: 548 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support Thereof filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit A−W)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
560 RESPONSE to Motion re: 541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
561 STATEMENT of Facts re: 560 Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Controverting Statement of Facts to the United States' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Based on Collateral Estoppel and Separate Statement of Facts to Support Response to the United States' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
562 RESPONSE to Motion re: 541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Based on Collateral Estoppel filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 01/26/2015)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 40 of 89

01/26/2015
01/26/2015 01/27/2015 01/29/2015
02/03/2015 02/05/2015 02/05/2015 02/05/2015 02/05/2015
02/05/2015
02/05/2015 02/05/2015

563 STATEMENT of Hildale Defendants' Controverting Statement of Facts to the US Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Pratial Summary Judgment and Separate Statement of Facts to Support Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: 562 Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
564 RESPONSE to Motion re: 544 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count I and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count II Regarding Damages filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
565 STATEMENT of Controverting and Additional Statement of Facts in Opposition re: 564 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−30, # 2 Exhibit 31−45)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
567 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Hearing re: Court's Decision Proceedings for date of 09/17/2013 before Judge H. Russel Holland re: 553 Notice of Appeal, 552 Notice of Appeal. (Transcriber: Elizabeth A. Lemke). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/19/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/2/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/29/2015. (RAP) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
566 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
568 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Expert Testimony and Opinions from Joseph DeLopez Regarding Ultimate Issues and Disbandment by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 and 2, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
569 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Expert Testimony of Jack Harris by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 and 2, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
570 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Expert Testimony of David Weller by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 and 2, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
571 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Expert Testimony of David Komm by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Hildale Ordinance 2010−01, # 2 Exhibit B − Defendants' Joint Expert Disclosure, # 3 Exhibit C − Renstrom's Report, # 4 Exhibit D − Komm's Deposition, # 5 Exhibit E − Komm's CV, # 6 Exhibit F − Komm's Report, # 7 Exhibit G − Customer Metered Usage Data, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
572 Joinder re: 569 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Expert Testimony of Jack Harris , 568 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Expert Testimony and Opinions from Joseph DeLopez Regarding Ultimate Issues and Disbandment , 570 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Expert Testimony of David Weller by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
573 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Testimony of Proposed Expert Witness Spiers by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
574 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Testimony of Proposed Expert Witnessess Stephenson and Mann by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 02/05/2015)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 41 of 89

02/05/2015 02/06/2015
02/06/2015 02/11/2015
02/13/2015 02/13/2015
02/13/2015 02/13/2015 02/13/2015 02/23/2015 02/23/2015 02/23/2015 02/23/2015 02/23/2015

575 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Testimony of Proposed Expert Witness LoManto by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
576 Joinder re: 574 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Testimony of Proposed Expert Witnessess Stephenson and Mann , 575 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Testimony of Proposed Expert Witness LoManto , 573 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Testimony of Proposed Expert Witness Spiers by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
577 STATUS REPORT by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4, # 2 Exhibit 5)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
578 ORDER − Police Report Production re: 577 Report − Status. The Town shall proceed with In−Synch Systems to ascertain: (1)When the defect was introduced into the Town's software program for police reports; (2)Whether or not that defect will in fact preclude recovery of the missing police report data; (3) When the defect was cured; and (4)If the defect was cured prior to January 26, 2013, can In−Synch Systems recover unaltered police report data entered between January 26 and April 23, 2013? The Town will please cause the foregoing to be accomplished within 30 days from the date of this order. Upon receipt of In−Synch Systems" report as to the foregoing, the parties shall confer and provide the court with a further joint status report with respect to the altered police reports. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 2/11/2015. (See Order for complete details.)(KMG) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
579 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
580 *RESPONSE to 563 Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − closing arguments, # 2 Exhibit 2 − P. Barlow, # 3 Exhibit 3 − I. Wyler, # 4 Exhibit 4 − R. Holm, # 5 Exhibit 5 − J. Barlow, # 6 Exhibit 6 − A. Chatwin, # 7 Exhibit 7 − S. Johnson, # 8 Exhibit 8 − H. Barlow, # 9 Exhibit 9 − W. Jessop)(Crockett, Jessica) *Modified to correct text on 2/17/2015 (KMG). (Entered: 02/13/2015)
581 *RESPONSE to Colorado City's Separate Statement of Facts to Support Response to the United States' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: 579 Reply to Response to Motion, 561 Statement by Plaintiff United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) *Modified to correct event on 2/17/2015 (KMG). (Entered: 02/13/2015)
582 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 544 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count I and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count II Regarding Damages filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
583 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 548 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support Thereof filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
584 Joint MOTION to Strike 580 Statement and Memorandum in Support Thereof by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
585 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 575 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Testimony of Proposed Expert Witness LoManto filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
586 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 569 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Expert Testimony of Jack Harris filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
587 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 570 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Expert Testimony of David Weller filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
588 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 573 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Testimony of Proposed Expert Witness Spiers filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Stratton Report, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Stratton Dep., # 3 Exhibit 3 − Spiers

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 42 of 89

02/23/2015 02/23/2015 02/23/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015
03/05/2015
03/05/2015
03/12/2015 03/16/2015 03/16/2015 03/16/2015

Dep.)(Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
589 RESPONSE to Motion re: 571 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Expert Testimony of David Komm Defendants' Response to United States' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of David Komm filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
590 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 568 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Expert Testimony and Opinions from Joseph DeLopez Regarding Ultimate Issues and Disbandment filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
591 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 574 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Testimony of Proposed Expert Witnessess Stephenson and Mann filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 & 2)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
592 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 571 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Expert Testimony of David Komm filed by United States of America. (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
593 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 568 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Expert Testimony and Opinions from Joseph DeLopez Regarding Ultimate Issues and Disbandment filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
594 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 569 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Expert Testimony of Jack Harris filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
595 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 570 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Expert Testimony of David Weller filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
596 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 575 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Testimony of Proposed Expert Witness LoManto Reply in Support of Hildale Defendants' Daubert Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Mark LoManto filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit F, # 6 Exhibit G)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
597 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 573 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Testimony of Proposed Expert Witness Spiers filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hamilton, R) *Modified to correct event on 3/6/2015 (KMG). (Entered: 03/05/2015)
598 *REPLY to Response to Motion re: 574 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Testimony of Proposed Expert Witnessess Stephenson and Mann filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hamilton, R) *Modified to correct event on 3/6/2015 (KMG). (Entered: 03/05/2015)
599 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 584 Joint MOTION to Strike 580 Statement and Memorandum in Support Thereof filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/12/2015)
600 ORDER Plaintiff's motion 571 to exclude expert testimony of David Komm is granted. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/16/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
601 ORDER Colorado City's motion in limine 570 , joined in by other defendants, is moot and is therefore denied. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/16/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
602 ORDER Colorado City's motion in limine 569 , joined in by other defendants, is denied. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/16/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 03/16/2015)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 43 of 89

03/16/2015
03/17/2015 03/17/2015 03/17/2015 03/20/2015 03/23/2015 04/03/2015 05/04/2015 05/21/2015
06/05/2015 06/08/2015

603 ORDER The motion in limine 568 as to the DeLopez expert testimony is granted in part and denied in part. The seventh question to DeLopez and the answer to it are admissible. The eighth question to DeLopez having to do with causes of deficiencies may be asked and answered; but DeLopez may not testify as to what remedy should be imposed, for in this instance the remedy of disbandment would be for the court, not the jury, to decide. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/16/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
604 ORDER The Hildale Defendants' motion 573 in limine to exclude the expert testimony of Spiers is denied. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/17/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
605 ORDER The Hildale Defendants' motion in limine 574 for the exclusion of expert testimony by Mann and Stephenson is granted for violation of Rule 26(a)(2)(B). In consideration of the foregoing, the court need not address the parties' other arguments. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/17/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
606 ORDER − On the basis of what is presently before the court, the court concludes that LoManto's proposed testimony as to TCWW's finances is not admissible. The motion in limine 575 is granted. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/17/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
607 STATUS REPORT by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
608 *REPLY to Response to Motion re: 584 Joint MOTION to Strike 580 Statement and Memorandum in Support Thereof by by Defendants Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Power, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) *Modified to correct document relationship on 3/24/2015 (KMG). (Entered: 03/23/2015)
609 ORDER that Colorado City's motion 529 regarding sanctions that is, that the court not presently sanction Colorado City is granted. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 4/3/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
610 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS requests have been made for oral argument on 541 United States' motion for partial summary judgment, 548 defendant Hildale's motion for partial summary judgment, and 544 Colorado City's motion for partial summary judgment. The requests are granted and oral argument will be heard telephonically. See PDF document for details. (LSP) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
611 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − Pursuant to informal communication with chambers, counsel have confirmed their availability for oral argument. Upon representation that counsel will be available, telephonic oral argument will be heard at 9:00 a.m., Alaska Daylight Time, on Tuesday, June 9, 2015. The time allowed for the motions being presented will be: United States' motion for partial summary judgment based on collateral estoppel: 15 minutes for plaintiff United States, and 15 minutes (combined) for defendants. Defendant Town of Colorado City's motion for summary judgment on Count I and motion for partial summary judgment on Count II: 15 minutes for movant Colorado City, and 15 minutes for plaintiff United States; and Hildale Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment: 15 minutes for movant(s) Hildale Defendants, and 15 minutes for plaintiff United States. Counsel are required to use a land line (not a mobile/cell phone) to participate in the hearing and should each call 907−677−6247 approximately three to five minutes prior to the scheduled start time for the hearing. The incoming calls will be routed to a telephone "bridge" (a silent answer), and counsel should remain on the line while the in−court deputy retrieves the incoming calls and connects them to the court's sound system. (KMG) (Entered: 05/21/2015)
612 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS permitting certain clients to call in to listen to the proceedings on 6/9/15. No later than noon on Monday, June 8, 2015, the court's case manager should be provided with the names of the clients. See order for full details. (SJF) (Entered: 06/05/2015)
613 *MANDATE of USCA, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as to 9CCA #14−17560 552 Notice of Appeal. (Copies sent by the Ninth Circuit.) (Attachments: # 1 Order, # 2 NDA)(KMG) *Modified to correct text on 6/11/2015 (KMG). (Entered: 06/08/2015)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 44 of 89

06/09/2015 06/11/2015 06/16/2015 06/17/2015 06/17/2015
06/19/2015
06/25/2015 06/29/2015 07/06/2015
07/13/2015

614 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Motion Hearing held on 6/9/2015. Court and counsel heard. The Motion to Strike 584 is denied. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 541 , the Motion for Summary Judgment 544 and the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 548 are taken under advisement. (ECRO Nancy Lealaisalanoa.) Hearing held 08:59 AM to 10:13 AM.(SJF) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
615 MANDATE of USCA, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as to 9CCA #14−17561 re: 553 Notice of Appeal. (Copies sent by the Ninth Circuit.) (Attachments: # 1 Order, # 2 NDA)(KMG) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
616 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
617 NOTICE re: Supplemental Authority Relevant to Summary Judgment Motions by United States of America re: 544 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count I and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count II Regarding Damages, 548 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support Thereof, 541 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 supplemental authority)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
618 ORDER denying 541 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and granting in part and denying in part 544 Colorado City's Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is granted as to plaintiff's request for Count II damages on behalf of Isaac Wyler, Willie R. Jessop, and Ross and Lori Chatwin. Plaintiff is precluded from requesting FHA damages from any defendant on behalf of these aggrieved persons, should plaintiff prevail on its FHA claims in Count II. Colorado City's motion is otherwise denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part 548 the Hildale defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The motion is granted as to TCP. Plaintiff's claims against TCP are dismissed with prejudice. The motion is also granted as to plaintiff's request for FHA damages from TCWA on behalf of Dan Wayman. Plaintiff is precluded from seeking FHA damages from TCWA on behalf of Dan Wayman. The Hildale defendants' motion is otherwise denied. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 06/17/15. (ATD) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
619 ORDER that the calendar for final trial preparation normally takes approximately 60 days. If the parties desire to engage in mediation or a settlement conference, such a proceeding will need to be arranged and held no later than the end of July. Counsel shall confer and, on or before June 30, 2015, report to the court as to their availability for a trial commencing October 14, 2015. If for any reason an October trial date cannot be met, the court is prepared to schedule trial of this case for January 18, 2016. See PDF document for details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 6/18/15. (LSP) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
620 MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order To Allow the United States To Amend its Final Witness List re: 312 Order, Set Deadlines, 48 Scheduling Order by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
621 STATUS REPORT JOINT REPORT REGARDING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED MATTERS by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
622 ORDER − Case Status: Trial Setting − The court is in receipt of the parties' joint report regarding a trial date and related matters re: 621 . Trial of this case is set to commence January 19, 2016, in Phoenix, Arizona. This is a firm trial date. The court will soon issue the Order for Pretrial Proceedings and Final Pretrial Conference. In the process of constructing that order, the court will establish a date, time,and place for a final pretrial conference. The court would prefer to hold that conference: (a)with counsel present in person; (b)on December 29 or 30, 2015; (c) at the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, in Phoenix. Counsel will please confer and, on or before July 14, 2015, advise of their availability for this final pretrial conference. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 7/6/2015. (See Order for complete details.)(KMG) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
623 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 620 MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order To Allow the United States To Amend its Final Witness List re: 312 Order, Set Deadlines, 48 Scheduling Order filed by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 45 of 89

07/14/2015 07/23/2015
07/24/2015
07/27/2015
07/31/2015 07/31/2015 07/31/2015 08/04/2015 08/04/2015 08/12/2015 08/13/2015 08/13/2015 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 08/20/2015

Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
624 NOTICE re: Parties' Availability for Pretrial Conference by United States of America re: 622 Order . (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
625 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 620 MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order To Allow the United States To Amend its Final Witness List re: 312 Order, Set Deadlines, 48 Scheduling Order filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
626 ORDER FOR PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE − Trial by jury in this case is scheduled to commence on Tuesday,January 19, 2016, at Phoenix, Arizona. Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/29/2015 at 09:00 AM before Judge H Russel Holland. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 7/24/15. (LAD) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
627 ORDER discovery in this case is reopened on a limited basis, and the limitation on the number of depositions is lifted to permit defendants to depose the three new witnesses if they wish. On or before July 31,2015, defendants shall disclose the names of witnesses whom defendants believe will contest the testimony of plaintiff's new witnesses; and plaintiff may depose those witnesses. Any such further depositions shall be scheduled so as to be completed by September 8, 2015. Any such depositions shall be limited in duration to no more than three hours, unless the parties agree otherwise. Any such depositions shall be limited to the subjects of the three new plaintiff witnesses as described in plaintiff's motion. If any party proposes to offer in evidence at trial any documents with respect to the events giving rise to the calling of three new witnesses, any such evidence shall be produced before or no later than the time set for the related, further deposition(s). On the foregoing terms and conditions, plaintiff's motion 620 to amend its final witness list is granted. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 7/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
628 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
629 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
630 NOTICE re: Hildale Defendants' Identification of Additional Witnesses Pursuant to th eJuly 27, 2015 Order by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated re: 627 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
631 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
632 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
633 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
634 NOTICE of Deposition of Charlene Jeffs, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
635 NOTICE of Deposition of Sgt. Taylor Nelson, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
636 NOTICE of Deposition of Sabrina Broadbent−Tetzner, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
637 NOTICE of Deposition, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
638 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
639 ORDER re Jury Selection − In preparation for trial of this case, the court requires input from counsel on several aspects of jury selection. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 8/20/2015. (See Order for complete details.)(KMG) (Entered: 08/20/2015)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 46 of 89

08/25/2015 08/27/2015 09/02/2015
09/04/2015 09/09/2015 09/11/2015
09/17/2015 09/18/2015
09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015
09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015

640 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Melissa J. England appearing for Colorado City, Town of. . (England, Melissa) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
641 REPORT of Jury Selection Joint Report Regarding Jury Selection re: 639 by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
642 ORDER re: Case Status: The court is in receipt of the parties' joint report concerning jury selection, 641 filed August 27, 2015. The jury for this case will be called from the northern counties of Arizona inasmuch as this case was filed as a Prescott case. The parties have agreed that the court will address juror requests to be excused dueto the expected length of trial in this case without first consulting the parties. See document for further details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 09/02/2015. (REK) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
643 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Emily M. Savner appearing for United States of America. Attorney Anika Gzifa and Lori K Wagner terminated. . (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
644 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
645 ORDER − Case Status. Counsel shall confer, exchange proposals amongst themselves, and submit a joint, proposed questionnaire to the court not later than October 16, 2015. See order for further details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 9/11/15. (SJF) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
646 NOTICE of Appearance by Sharon Ilana Brett on behalf of United States of America. (Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
647 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Exclude Substantive Testimony on Questions to Which Deponents Asserted First or Fifth Amendment Privileges by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
648 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Criminal Conviction by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
649 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Exclude Allegations Regarding Jack Harris by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
650 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants From Offering Colorado City's Police Reports Into Evidence by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
651 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Cross−Examination Concerning Purported Professional Misconduct by Samuel Brower by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
652 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude All Evidence Regarding Warren Jeffs' Dictations, Sermons, and Correspondence by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
653 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Any Witness' Assertion of Their Fifth Amendment Right During Deposition by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
654 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude All Evidence Regarding "Polygamy" and Related Terms by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
655 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Evidence Regarding Legislative Bills Pursued Against Colorado City and Hildale City by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
656 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Grand Jury Investigations into the Marshal's Department by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 47 of 89

09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015
09/18/2015 09/18/2015
09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015

Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
657 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding the Jury's Verdict in Cooke v. Colorado City, et al., and the Court's Injunction by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
658 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Colorado City's Complaint for Declaratory Relief by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
659 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Mohave County Grand Jury's Indictment Against David Darger and His Subsequent Plea Agreement by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
660 MOTION in Limine re: to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Regading TCWW by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
661 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding a Witness' Participation In, Or Knowledge About, Underage Marriage by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
662 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Testimony and Evidence of the Declaration of Beneficiaries by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
663 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Untimely Disclosures and Productions by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
664 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Evidence and Testimony Regarding FLDS Religious Teachings by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
665 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit A to Their Motion in LImine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony Regarding Alleged Communications with Clergy by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
666 FILED at 727 − SEALED LODGED Proposed Under Seal Exhibit A to Hildale Defendants Motion in Limine Regarding Clergy Communications re: 665 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit A to Their Motion in LImine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony Regarding Alleged Communications with Clergy. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) Modified on 10/23/2015 (REW). (Entered: 09/18/2015)
667 MOTION in Limine re: to Exclude Evidence and Testimony regarding Clergy Communications by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
668 MOTION to Seal Document Hildale Defendants Motion to Seal Motion in Limine regarding Helaman Barlow and Vincen Barlow Trial Testimony and Exhibits Attached Thereto by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
669 *FILED at 729 − SEALED LODGED Proposed Under Seal Motion in Limine regarding Helaman Barlow and Vincen Barlow Trial Testimony re: 668 MOTION to Seal Document Hildale Defendants Motion to Seal Motion in Limine regarding Helaman Barlow and Vincen Barlow Trial Testimony and Exhibits Attached Thereto.

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 48 of 89

09/18/2015
09/18/2015
09/18/2015 09/21/2015
09/22/2015 09/24/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015

Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) Modified on 10/23/2015 (REW). (Entered: 09/18/2015)
670 *FILED at 730 − SEALED LODGED Proposed Under Seal Exhibits L and M to Hildale Defendants Motion in Limine regarding Helaman Barlow and Vincen Barlow Trial Testimony re: 668 MOTION to Seal Document Hildale Defendants Motion to Seal Motion in Limine regarding Helaman Barlow and Vincen Barlow Trial Testimony and Exhibits Attached Thereto. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit L2, # 2 Exhibit L3, # 3 Exhibit L4, # 4 Exhibit M)(Hamilton, R) Modified on 10/23/2015 (REW). (Entered: 09/18/2015)
671 Joinder re: 655 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Evidence Regarding Legislative Bills Pursued Against Colorado City and Hildale City , 652 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude All Evidence Regarding Warren Jeffs' Dictations, Sermons, and Correspondence , 657 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding the Jury's Verdict in Cooke v. Colorado City, et al., and the Court's Injunction , 658 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Colorado City's Complaint for Declaratory Relief , 659 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Mohave County Grand Jury's Indictment Against David Darger and His Subsequent Plea Agreement , 656 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Grand Jury Investigations into the Marshal's Department , 661 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding a Witness' Participation In, Or Knowledge About, Underage Marriage , 653 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Any Witness' Assertion of Their Fifth Amendment Right During Deposition , 654 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude All Evidence Regarding "Polygamy" and Related Terms by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
672 MOTION in Limine re: to Admit FLDS Church Leaders' Co−Conspirator Statements and for Fifth Amendment Adverse Inference by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−8, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
673 Joinder re: 663 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Untimely Disclosures and Productions , 667 MOTION in Limine re: to Exclude Evidence and Testimony regarding Clergy Communications , 668 MOTION to Seal Document Hildale Defendants Motion to Seal Motion in Limine regarding Helaman Barlow and Vincen Barlow Trial Testimony and Exhibits Attached Thereto, 664 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Evidence and Testimony Regarding FLDS Religious Teachings , 660 MOTION in Limine re: to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Regading TCWW , 669 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document, 662 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Testimony and Evidence of the Declaration of Beneficiaries by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
674 NOTICE of Errata re: 667 MOTION in Limine re: to Exclude Evidence and Testimony regarding Clergy Communications by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E, # 3 Exhibit G, # 4 Exhibit H)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
675 NOTICE re: Attorney Name Change by United States of America . (Crockett, Jessica) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
676 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 661 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding a Witness' Participation In, Or Knowledge About, Underage Marriage filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
677 RESPONSE to Motion re: 655 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Evidence Regarding Legislative Bills Pursued Against Colorado City and Hildale City filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
678 RESPONSE to Motion re: 649 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Exclude Allegations Regarding Jack Harris filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 49 of 89

10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015
10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015

(Entered: 10/05/2015)
679 RESPONSE to Motion re: 672 MOTION in Limine re: to Admit FLDS Church Leaders' Co−Conspirator Statements and for Fifth Amendment Adverse Inference filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
680 RESPONSE to Motion re: 658 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Colorado City's Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed by United States of America. (Clarke, Jessica) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
681 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 665 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit A to Their Motion in LImine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony Regarding Alleged Communications with Clergy filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
682 SEALED LODGED Proposed Response to Motion in Limine to Exclude Clergy Communications re: 665 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit A to Their Motion in LImine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony Regarding Alleged Communications with Clergy. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
683 RESPONSE to Motion re: 657 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding the Jury's Verdict in Cooke v. Colorado City, et al., and the Court's Injunction filed by United States of America. (Clarke, Jessica) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
684 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 654 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude All Evidence Regarding "Polygamy" and Related Terms filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
685 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 663 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Untimely Disclosures and Productions filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Donnelly Ltr to Hamilton, # 2 Exhibit US 1st Set of RFPs, # 3 Exhibit US 8th Set of RFPs)(Clarke, Jessica) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
686 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 662 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Testimony and Evidence of the Declaration of Beneficiaries filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Savner, Emily) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
687 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 660 MOTION in Limine re: to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Regading TCWW filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
688 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 659 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Mohave County Grand Jury's Indictment Against David Darger and His Subsequent Plea Agreement filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
689 RESPONSE to Motion re: 656 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Grand Jury Investigations into the Marshal's Department filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
690 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 653 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Any Witness' Assertion of Their Fifth Amendment Right During Deposition filed by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
691 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 647 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Exclude Substantive Testimony on Questions to Which Deponents Asserted First or Fifth Amendment Privileges filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
692 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 648 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Criminal Conviction filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/05/2015)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 50 of 89

10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015 10/05/2015
10/07/2015
10/07/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015

693 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 651 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Cross−Examination Concerning Purported Professional Misconduct by Samuel Brower filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
694 RESPONSE to Motion re: 650 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants From Offering Colorado City's Police Reports Into Evidence filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
695 RESPONSE to Motion re: 668 MOTION to Seal Document Hildale Defendants Motion to Seal Motion in Limine regarding Helaman Barlow and Vincen Barlow Trial Testimony and Exhibits Attached Thereto filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
696 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 652 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude All Evidence Regarding Warren Jeffs' Dictations, Sermons, and Correspondence filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
697 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 664 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Evidence and Testimony Regarding FLDS Religious Teachings filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
698 *FILED at 731 − SEALED LODGED Proposed Opposition to Hildale Defendants' Motion in Limine Regarding Helaman Barlow's and Vincen Barlow's Trial Testimony. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−7)(Donnelly, Matthew) Modified on 10/23/2015 (REW). (Entered: 10/05/2015)
699 *Joinder with Colorado City's Responses to Plaintiff's Motions in Limine re: 679 , 678 , 694 by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) *Modified to include document relationship on 10/8/2015 (KMG). (Entered: 10/07/2015)
700 Joinder re: 691 Response in Opposition to Motion, 693 Response in Opposition to Motion, 692 Response in Opposition to Motion by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
701 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 664 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Evidence and Testimony Regarding FLDS Religious Teachings filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
702 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 659 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Mohave County Grand Jury's Indictment Against David Darger and His Subsequent Plea Agreement filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
703 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 658 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Colorado City's Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
704 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 657 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding the Jury's Verdict in Cooke v. Colorado City, et al., and the Court's Injunction filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
705 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 661 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding a Witness' Participation In, Or Knowledge About, Underage Marriage filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
706 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 656 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Grand Jury Investigations into the Marshal's Department filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
707 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 655 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Evidence Regarding Legislative Bills Pursued Against Colorado City and Hildale City filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2015)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 51 of 89

10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015
10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015

708 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 654 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude All Evidence Regarding "Polygamy" and Related Terms filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
709 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 653 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Evidence Regarding Any Witness' Assertion of Their Fifth Amendment Right During Deposition filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
710 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 652 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude All Evidence Regarding Warren Jeffs' Dictations, Sermons, and Correspondence filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
711 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 667 MOTION in Limine re: to Exclude Evidence and Testimony regarding Clergy Communications filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
712 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 650 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants From Offering Colorado City's Police Reports Into Evidence filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
713 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 651 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Cross−Examination Concerning Purported Professional Misconduct by Samuel Brower filed by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
714 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 647 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Exclude Substantive Testimony on Questions to Which Deponents Asserted First or Fifth Amendment Privileges filed by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
715 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 649 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Exclude Allegations Regarding Jack Harris filed by United States of America. (Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
716 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 648 MOTION in Limine re: Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Criminal Conviction filed by United States of America. (Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
717 *FILED at 732 − SEALED LODGED Proposed Defendant Town Of Colorado Citys Reply To Support The Hildale Defendants Motion In Limine Regarding Helaman Barlows And Vincen Barlows Trial Testimony re: 668 MOTION to Seal Document Hildale Defendants Motion to Seal Motion in Limine regarding Helaman Barlow and Vincen Barlow Trial Testimony and Exhibits Attached Thereto. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) Modified on 10/23/2015 (REW). (Entered: 10/15/2015)
718 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 668 MOTION to Seal Document Hildale Defendants Motion to Seal Motion in Limine regarding Helaman Barlow and Vincen Barlow Trial Testimony and Exhibits Attached Thereto filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
719 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 663 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Untimely Disclosures and Productions filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
720 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 672 MOTION in Limine re: to Admit FLDS Church Leaders' Co−Conspirator Statements and for Fifth Amendment Adverse Inference filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
721 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 660 MOTION in Limine re: to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Regading TCWW filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
722 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 662 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Testimony and Evidence of the Declaration of Beneficiaries filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/15/2015)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 52 of 89

10/15/2015 10/15/2015
10/16/2015 10/23/2015 10/23/2015 10/23/2015
10/23/2015 10/23/2015 10/23/2015 10/23/2015 10/23/2015 10/27/2015
10/27/2015 10/27/2015 10/27/2015

723 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 665 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit A to Their Motion in LImine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony Regarding Alleged Communications with Clergy filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
724 *FILED at 733 − SEALED LODGED Proposed UNDER SEAL REply Memorandum in Support of Hildale Defendants' Motion in Limine re Helaman Barlow's and Vincen Barlow's Trial Testimony re: 668 MOTION to Seal Document Hildale Defendants Motion to Seal Motion in Limine regarding Helaman Barlow and Vincen Barlow Trial Testimony and Exhibits Attached Thereto. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Hamilton, R) Modified on 10/23/2015 (REW). (Entered: 10/15/2015)
725 NOTICE re: Proposed Jury Questionnaire by United States of America re: 645 Order . (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
726 ORDER, the Motion to Seal Exhibit A 665 is denied; the clerk shall place the filing at Docket 666 on the public docket. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/23/15.(REW) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
727 EXHIBIT A by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated re: 667 MOTION in Limine re: to Exclude Evidence and Testimony regarding Clergy Communications. (REW) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
728 ORDER, the Motion to Seal 668 is granted; City of Hildale and Twin City Water Authority's motion in limine regarding Helaman Barlow's and Vincent Barlow's trial testimony and exhibits 669 , 670 , the United States' response to that motion 698 , and Colorado City's and the Hildale Defendants' replies 717 , 724 are all sealed. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/23/15.(REW) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
729 SEALED MOTION in Limine Regarding Helaman Barlow's and Vincen Barlow's Trial Testimony by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−J)(REW) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
730 Sealed Exhibits L−M re: 729 Motion in Limine filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Main Document: Exhibits L−M − part 1; Attachments: # 1 Exhibits L−M − part 2)(REW) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
731 SEALED RESPONSE to Motion re: 729 SEALED MOTION in Limine Regarding Helaman Barlow's and Vincen Barlow's Trial Testimony filed by United States of America. (REW) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
732 SEALED REPLY in Support re: 729 Hidale Defenants' SEALED MOTION in Limine Regarding Helaman Barlow's and Vincen Barlow's Trial Testimony filed by Colorado City, Town of. (REW) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
733 SEALED REPLY to Response to Motion re: 729 SEALED MOTION in Limine Regarding Helaman Barlow's and Vincen Barlow's Trial Testimony filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (REW) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
734 ORDER FROM THE CHAMBERS OF JUDGE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND. ORDERED The parties' Proposed Confidential Juror Questionnaire, is approved with a minor clarification at page 1, second paragraph, and the addition of defendant's proposed additional questions, Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. The revised Confidential Juror Questionnaire is filed concurrent herewith. (MAP) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
735 CONFIDENTIAL Juror Questionnaire. (MAP) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
736 ORDER The motion in limine is granted 647 . Witnesses who have precluded discovery by asserting a First or Fifth Amendment privilege may not offer substantive testimony on the topic or subject as to which the privilege was asserted. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
737 ORDER granting 648 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 53 of 89

10/27/2015 10/27/2015 10/27/2015 10/27/2015 10/27/2015 10/27/2015
10/27/2015
10/27/2015 10/27/2015 10/27/2015

738 ORDER The motion in limine 649 is granted as to the subject of pension spiking. The motion is also granted as to the subject of improper reporting of kidnaping statistics; subject, however, to the foregoing qualification permitting general questioning of Chief Harris with respect to the handling of misconduct allegations. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
739 ORDER granting 650 Motion in Limine to preclude defendants from offering police reports by the Colorado City marshal's office ("CCMO"). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
740 ORDER − A ruling on the instant motion in Limine 672 re Co−conspirator Statements and Fifth Amendment Adverse Inference is held in abeyance and will be taken up at the appropriate time during trial. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
741 ORDER − The motion in limine 651 is denied as to questions concerning possible bias on the part of Brower. The motion in limine is granted as to evidence of a purported conflict of interest or professional misconduct by Brower. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
742 ORDER The motion in limine 658 is granted; however, this ruling does not preclude evidence of the interactions between parties to the declaratory action, nor would it preclude evidence (if there is such) of the role of FLDS leaders in the institution of that suit. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
743 ORDER The motion in limine is granted 657 . The verdict in Cooke shall not be admitted as apart of the United States' case in chief. The United States argues that evidence of the jury verdict and injunction in Cooke may be proper rebuttal evidence. The court has doubts in this regard, but will withhold a ruling as to possible use of the verdict in rebuttal. The United States' argues that the verdict and injunction in Cooke may be relevant to its claim for relief in this case, and in that regard, the United States is probably correct; but again, the court will withhold ruling until the relief phase of the case. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
744 ORDER: re 661 Motion in Limine No. 4; Evidence of Underage Marriage, etc. − Evidence with respect to underage marriage may be prejudicial; but in light of the claims made and issues which must be tried, participation in and/or knowledge of underage marriage is not unfairly prejudicial so long as argument and questioning has a nexus to plaintiff's allegations that the cities were under the control of FLDS leaders or that the CCMO abdicated its law enforcement functions with respect to such matters as underage marriage in deference to the dictates of the FLDS Church. On the other hand, isolated testimony as to the fact of a witness' cohabitation with an underage female or a witness' adherence to a religious belief favoring such relationships, without a foundation or predicate testimony connecting such conduct to plaintiff's claims, would be unfairly prejudicial. The motion in limine is granted in part and denied in part as set out above. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
745 *ORDER − The motion in limine no 5 is granted 656 . The United States may not offer evidence of anygrand jury investigation of the CCMO. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) *Modified to include document linkage on 10/27/2015 (KMG). (Entered: 10/27/2015)
746 ORDER − Motion in Limine No. 1; Indictment of Drager 659 − Colorado City's motion in limine is denied in part and granted in part as set out above. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
747 ORDER − Motion in Limine No. 9; Warren Jeffs' Dictations, Etc. 652 − Assuming the United States establishes the evidentiary predicate of a joint venture or concerted action between defendants and the FLDS Church, the dictations or other pronouncement of Jeffs which are relevant to the issues in this case become admissible and non−hearsay for purposes of Rule 801(d)(2)(E), Federal Rules of Evidence. See the court's ruling on the United States motion in limine to allow evidence of the statements of joint venturers or those engaged in a concerted action 672 . Final ruling on this motion in limine is deferred pending a determination that the

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 54 of 89

10/27/2015
10/27/2015 10/27/2015
10/28/2015 10/28/2015 10/29/2015 10/29/2015 10/29/2015 10/29/2015 11/02/2015 11/02/2015 11/02/2015 11/02/2015 11/04/2015
11/04/2015

FLDS leaders and cities were engaged in a joint venture or concerted action. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
748 ORDER − Motion in Limine No. 6; Evidence of Legislative Bills 655 − The motion in limine is granted for purposes of the United States' case in chief and the liability side of the trial of this case. Evidence of proposed legislative action may or may not be relevant to the remedy phase of this case. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
749 ORDER − Motion in Limine No. 7; Evidence Regarding Polygamy, etc. 654 − The motion in limine is granted in part and denied in part as set out above. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
750 ORDER − Motion in Limine No. 8; Assertion of Fifth Amendment Rights − The court has heretofore declined a request for an adverse inference instruction, but that issue will be taken up again at the end of trial for purposes of the final settlement of jury instructions. The motion in limine is denied 653 . Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/27/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
751 ORDER denying 667 Motion in Limine re: to Exclude Evidence and Testimony regarding Clergy Communications. (See Order for full details.) Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/28/15. (ATD) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
752 ORDER denying 664 Motion in Limine re: Exclude Evidence and Testimony Regarding FLDS Religious Teachings. (See Order for full details.) Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/28/15. (ATD) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
753 SEALED ORDER granting 729 Sealed Motion in Limine. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/29/15. (LAD) cc: All Counsel (Entered: 10/29/2015)
754 ORDER − The 663 Motion in Limine is denied as to witnesses; and granted in part and denied in part as set out above with respect to documents. (See Order for full details.) Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/29/15. (ATD) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
755 ORDER denying 660 Motion in Limine re: to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Regading TCWW. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/28/2015. (ATD) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
756 ORDER denying 662 Motion in Limine re: Exclude Testimony and Evidence of the Declaration of Beneficiaries. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/28/15. (ATD) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
757 STATEMENT OF FACTS by Plaintiff United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
758 Witness List by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Rosemarie Urbanski CV, # 2 Appendix Joseph DeLopez CV, # 3 Appendix Zachary Renstrom CV, # 4 Appendix Mark LoManto CV, # 5 Appendix Jack Harris CV, # 6 Appendix Kenneth Spiers CV)(Clarke, Jessica) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
759 Witness List by Hildale, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
760 STATEMENT of Issues by Plaintiff United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
761 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − Upon request and confirmation of counsel's availability, an in−chambers conference is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. Alaska Standard Time, on Wednesday, November 4, 2015. Counsel for defendants will arrange for a conference call to chambers: 907.677.6252. This is an informal conference (not recorded). (KMG) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
762 MINUTE ENTRY − Telephonic Conference held before Judge H Russel Holland on 11/4/2015. Pursuant to an order from chambers 761 , an informal conference was convened at 8:58 a.m. (Alaska Standard Time) on Wednesday, November 4, 2015.Attending were: R. Blake Hamilton and Jeffrey Charles Matura for defendants and Sean Keveney and Matthew J. Donnelly for plaintiff. The conference concluded

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 55 of 89

11/09/2015 11/10/2015 11/10/2015 11/10/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/13/2015
11/17/2015 11/17/2015 11/17/2015
11/19/2015
11/20/2015

at 9:16 a.m. (not recorded). Hearing held 8:58 AM to 9:16 AM.(KMG) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
763 Sealed Mail Returned addressed to Rick D Bonewell: Document No. 753 , Return to Sender, Attempted − Not Known, Unable to Forward. (LAD) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
764 Exhibit List Defendants' Joint Trial Exhibit List by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A, Part 2)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
765 Exhibit List by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
766 * MOTION Clarification re: 739 Order on Motion in Limine Motion for Clarification of Order on CCMO's Police Reports by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) *Document is not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(c); Attorney notified on 11/13/2015 (KMG). (Entered: 11/10/2015)
767 MOTION to Strike 764 Exhibit List Or in the Alternative, For an Extension of Time to Respond by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
768 MOTION to Expedite Motion to Strike Defendants' Exhibit List, or in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time to Respond by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
769 MOTION for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion in Limine Regarding Twin City Water Works by Colorado City, Town of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
770 Witness List by Colorado City, Town of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Final Witness List)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
771 ORDER granting 768 Motion to Expedite Review. This Order applies to the following motions: Defendant Town of Colorado City's Motion for Clarification 766 , Defendant City of Hildale's Motion for Reconsideration 769 and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Exhibit List or, in the alternative, for an Extension of Time to Respond 767 . Responses to the foregoing motions shall be served and filed no later than noon, Mountain Standard Time, on Tuesday, November 17, 2015. No replies will be entertained; however, a hearing on all of the foregoing motions is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. Alaska Standard Time (11:00 a.m. in Arizona and 1:00 p.m. in Washington, D.C.) on Thursday, November 19, 2015. See order for further details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 11/13/15.(SJF) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
772 RESPONSE to Motion re: 769 MOTION for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion in Limine Regarding Twin City Water Works filed by United States of America. (Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
773 RESPONSE to Motion re: 766 MOTION Clarification re: 739 Order on Motion in Limine Motion for Clarification of Order on CCMO's Police Reports filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
774 * RESPONSE to Motion re: 767 MOTION to Strike 764 Exhibit List Or in the Alternative, For an Extension of Time to Respond Joint Response to Motion to Strike Defendants' Exhibit List filed by Colorado City, Town of, City of Hildale, Twin City Water Authority and Twin City Power. (Matura, Jeffrey) * Modified to add additional filers on 11/18/2015 (LAD). (Entered: 11/17/2015)
780 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Motion Hearing held on 11/19/2015. Court heard re Motion to Strike (dkt 767 ); DENIED. In the alternative, Motion for Extension of Time until December 4, 2015 (dkt 767 ); GRANTED. Defendants objections due by December 16, 2015. Written Order to follow. Court heard re Motion for Clarification (dkt 766 ); GRANTED. Written Order to follow. Court heard re Motion for Reconsideration (dkt 769); DENIED. Written Order tofollow. (ECRO Robin Carter.) Hearing held 9:05 AM to 9:11 AM. (LAD) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
775 RESPONSE re: 759 Witness List , U.S. Objections to Deposition Designations, and U.S. Counter−Designations by Plaintiff United States of America. (Keveney, Sean)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 56 of 89

11/20/2015 11/20/2015
11/20/2015 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 11/25/2015 11/30/2015 12/02/2015 12/02/2015
12/02/2015 12/03/2015 12/03/2015 12/04/2015 12/04/2015 12/04/2015 12/04/2015

(Entered: 11/20/2015)
776 OBJECTION re: 758 Witness List Defendants' Joint Objections and Counter−Designations to United States' Designations of Deposition Testimony by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
777 ORDER − Plaintiff's motion to strike 767 is denied. Plaintiff's alternative request for an extension of time is granted. Plaintiff's objections or non−objections to defendants' proposed trial exhibits shall be served and filed on or before December 4, 2015. Defendants' responses shall be served and filed on or before December 16, 2015. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 11/20/15. (LAD) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
778 ORDER granting 766 Motion for Clarification. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 11/20/15. (LAD) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
779 ORDER denying 769 Motion for Reconsideration. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 11/20/15. (LAD) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
781 OBJECTION re: 765 Exhibit List Defendants' Joint Objections to the United States' Trial Exhibits by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
782 MOTION Alternative Service on Colorado City Mayor Joseph Allred by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
783 ORDER FROM THE CHAMBERS OF JUDGE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND re: 782 MOTION for Alternative Service on Colorado City Mayor Joseph Allred. ORDERED Defendants' response, if any, shall be served and filed on or before noon (Mountain Standard Time) on Wednesday, December 2, 2015. (MAP) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
784 RESPONSE to Motion re: 782 MOTION Alternative Service on Colorado City Mayor Joseph Allred filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
785 MOTION to Strike Undisclosed Water Expert Marvin Wilson from Defendants' 759 Witness List or, in the Alternative, Limit his Testimony by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Savner, Emily) *Modified to add document linkage on 12/3/2015 (ATD). (Entered: 12/02/2015)
786 Exhibit List and Responses to Defendants' 776 Objections to U.S. Exhibits by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Keveney, Sean) *Modified to add document linkage on 12/3/2015 (ATD). (Entered: 12/02/2015)
787 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − Counsel for plaintiff will please notify the court when Mayor Allred has accepted service of plaintiff's subpoena. (ATD) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
788 NOTICE of Service of Trial Subpoena on Joseph Allred re: 787 Order by United States of America . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Keveney, Sean) *Modified to add document linkage on 12/4/2015 (ATD). (Entered: 12/03/2015)
789 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS re: 786 Exhibit List filed by United States of America. On or before December 14, 2015, plaintiff shall serve and file a brief memorandum of law in support of plaintiff's responses. Defendants may serve and file a responding brief on or before December 21, 2015. (ATD) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
790 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − Pursuant to 788 , the United States' 782 motion for alternative service is denied as moot. (ATD) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
791 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS re: Juror Questionnaire Forms − The court urges counsel to expedite their review of the jury questionnaires. Counsel will please jointly report the status of the foregoing to the court on or before Wednesday, December 23, 2015. (See Order for complete details.) (ATD) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
792 OBJECTION re: 764 Exhibit List U.S. Objections to Defendants' Trial Exhibits by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Donnelly, Matthew)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 57 of 89

12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/08/2015
12/08/2015
12/14/2015 12/15/2015 12/16/2015 12/17/2015
12/17/2015
12/21/2015
12/21/2015

(Entered: 12/04/2015)
793 Proposed Voir Dire by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
794 Joint Proposed Voir Dire by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Gregson, Ashley) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
795 Proposed Jury Instructions by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
796 TRIAL BRIEF by United States of America. (Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
797 Joint Proposed Jury Instructions by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
798 TRIAL BRIEF Defendants' Joint Trial Brief by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
799 *MOTION to Amend/Correct Amend Scheduling Order to Allow the United States to Depose a Witness and Have that Witness Testify by Deposition Designation, and to Seal Memorandum in Support by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew). *Modified to add MOTION to Seal Document event on 12/9/2015 (SCH). (Entered: 12/08/2015)
800 FILED at 800 − SEALED LODGED Proposed Memorandum in Support re: 799 MOTION to Amend/Correct Amend Scheduling Order to Allow the United States to Depose a Witness and Have that Witness Testify by Deposition Designation, and to Seal Memorandum in Support. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) Modified on 12/29/2015 (REW). (Entered: 12/08/2015)
801 MEMORANDUM of Law in Support of the United States' Responses to Defendants' Exhibit Objections by Plaintiff United States of America. (Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 12/14/2015)
802 NOTICE re: Overnight Mailing Address by United States of America re: 791 Order, Set Deadlines . (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
803 RESPONSE re: 792 Objection Defendants' Responses to United States Objections to Defendants' Trial Exhibits by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
804 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − Pursuant to an order entered December 4, 2015 791 , completed juror questionnaires are to be sent to counsel for the parties for review. Counsel for plaintiff has requested delivery of the juror questionnaire forms to: Civil Rights Division, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, 1800 G St., NW, Suite 7002, Washington, D.C. 20530. The request is approved, and the clerk will please direct the plaintiff's copy to the above address. (KMG) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
805 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS: Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Allow the United States To Depose a Witness and Have that Witness Testify by Deposition Designation, and To Seal Memorandum in Support. Defendants shall serve and file their response to the motion by noon (MST) on Monday, December 21, 2015. (SJF) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
806 RESPONSE to Motion re: 799 MOTION to Amend/Correct Amend Scheduling Order to Allow the United States to Depose a Witness and Have that Witness Testify by Deposition Designation, and to Seal Memorandum in Support MOTION to Seal Document filed by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
807 RESPONSE to Motion re: 785 MOTION to Strike Undisclosed Water Expert Marvin Wilson from Defendants' Witness List or, in the Alternative, Limit his Testimony Defendants' Joint Response to the United States' Motion to Strike Undisclosed Water Expert Marvin Wilson from Defendants' Witness List or, in the alternative, Limit His Testimony filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/21/2015)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 58 of 89

12/21/2015 12/23/2015 12/28/2015
12/28/2015 12/29/2015
12/29/2015 12/29/2015 12/30/2015
01/04/2016 01/05/2016 01/05/2016
01/05/2016 01/08/2016

808 RESPONSE re: 801 Memorandum Defendants' Joint Response to the United States' Memorandum of Law to Support its Responses to Defendants' Exhibit Objections by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
809 REPORT of Parties on Juror Questionnaires re: 791 by Plaintiff United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 12/23/2015)
810 SEALED LODGED Proposed Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Amend Scheduling Order re: 799 MOTION to Amend/Correct Amend Scheduling Order to Allow the United States to Depose a Witness and Have that Witness Testify by Deposition Designation, and to Seal Memorandum in Support MOTION to Seal Document. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 12/28/2015)
811 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 785 MOTION to Strike Undisclosed Water Expert Marvin Wilson from Defendants' Witness List or, in the Alternative, Limit his Testimony filed by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 12/28/2015)
812 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H. Russel Holland: Final Pretrial Conference held on 12/29/15. As to the entire case, a jury trial will be held. On the first day of trial, jury selection will start at 1:00 PM. The Court grants the United States' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Allow the United States to Depose a Witness and have that Witness Testify by Deposition Designation to Seal Memorandum in Support (Doc. 799 ). See minutes for details. (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder.) Hearing held 9:01 a.m. to 10:43 a.m. (NKS) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
813 Sealed Memorandum in Support re: 799 MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order filed by United States of America. (REW) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
814 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Colorado City, Town of for proceedings held on 12/29/2015, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s). (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
815 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Final Pretrial Conference Proceedings held on 12/29/2015, before Judge H. Russel Holland. Court Reporter Linda Schroeder. The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/20/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/1/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/29/2016. (RCO) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
816 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America for proceedings held on 12/29/15, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s). (Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
817 MEMORANDUM Regarding Invocations of Fifth and First Amendment Privileges at Trial by Plaintiff United States of America. (Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
818 TRIAL BRIEF Defendants Trial Brief Regarding: (1) Whether The United States Can Ask A Witness The Same Questions During Trial To Which The Witness Previously Invoked Their First Or Fifth Amendment Privileges During Their Deposition and (2) Whether A Jury Instruction On A Witness Invocation Of Their First Amendment Privilege During Their Deposition Is Proper by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
819 NOTICE by Lyle Jeffs Non−Party Prospective Witness Lyle Jeffs' Notice of Intention to File Motion to Quash. (Piccarreta, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
820 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS: In connection with the court's consideration of trial witnesses' testimony on subjects as to which the witnesses asserted a First or Fifth Amendment privilege in the course of a deposition, non−party Lyle Jeffs has suggested that he will serve and file a motion to quash subpoena on January 8, 2016. Assuming the foregoing motion is filed, the court will entertain responses from the parties to this case if served and filed by noon (MST) on January 12, 2016. The court will not entertain reply memoranda. (SJF) (Entered: 01/08/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 59 of 89

01/08/2016 01/08/2016 01/08/2016 01/12/2016 01/12/2016 01/12/2016
01/12/2016
01/12/2016
01/13/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/15/2016 01/19/2016 01/19/2016

821 NOTICE re: Joint Notice Regarding the United States' Rule 1006 Summary Exhibits 286A and 286B by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
822 MOTION to Quash Subpoena to Non−Party Lyle Jeffs by Lyle Jeffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Piccarreta, Michael) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
823 NOTICE of Errata re: 822 MOTION to Quash Subpoena to Non−Party Lyle Jeffs by Movant Lyle Jeffs.. (Piccarreta, Michael) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
824 RESPONSE to Motion re: 822 MOTION to Quash Subpoena to Non−Party Lyle Jeffs filed by United States of America. (Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
825 RESPONSE to Motion re: 822 MOTION to Quash Subpoena to Non−Party Lyle Jeffs Defendants' Response to Non−Party Lyle Jeffs' Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
826 ORDER Rule 1006 Proceedings re: 821 Notice − It appears to the court that the United States might well be able to cure most, if not all, of the problems to which the defendants call attention. The court urges the United States to consider revising its proposed summary exhibits. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 1/12/15. (LAD) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
827 ORDER Examination of Witnesses Who Have Asserted First or Fifth Amendment Privileges −...if the witness again declines to answer at trial a question that he or she declined to answer on deposition, the United States will be permitted to make a record of the fact that the witness was ordered to answer and still declined to answer. On the other hand, if at trial the witness answers the question, then there is no problem. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 1/12/16. (LAD) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
828 MINUTE ORDER from Chambers as to 822 MOTION to Quash Subpoena to Non−Party Lyle Jeffs: The court will entertain a reply from Jeffs if served and filed by noon (MST) on January 13, 2016. (See document for full details). (LAD) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
829 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 822 MOTION to Quash Subpoena to Non−Party Lyle Jeffs filed by Lyle Jeffs. (Piccarreta, Michael) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
830 ORDER granting Jeff's 822 Motion to Quash. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 1/14/16. (LAD) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
831 NOTICE TO PARTIES (Goals for Completion of Trial and Management of Exhibits): See document for further details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 1/14/2016. (REK) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
832 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Colorado City, Town of for proceedings held on 1/19/2016−2/25/2016, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s). (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
833 NOTICE re: Submission of Revised Summary Exhibits by United States of America re: 826 Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 286A1, # 2 Exhibit 286B1)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
834 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America for proceedings held on 1/19/2016 − 2/24/2016, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s). (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
835 Supplemental Proposed Jury Instructions by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
836 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL EXCERPTED TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 1 (Pages 1 through 106) proceedings held on 01/19/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/9/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 60 of 89

01/19/2016 01/19/2016 01/20/2016 01/20/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/22/2016
01/22/2016

for 2/19/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/18/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
837 SEALED TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/19/16 before Judge H Russel Holland. Court Reporter: Candy L Potter. Type of Hearing: Jury Trial Day 1 − (Sealed Discussion at Sidebar). (MAP) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
838 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial Begun on 1/19/2016. Jury selected. Jury Trial will resume on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Candy Potter.) Hearing held 11:05 AM to 4:32 PM.(LFIG) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
839 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 2) held on 1/20/2016. Trial will resume on Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporters: Linda Schroeder−AM; David German−PM) Hearing held 9:00 AM to 4:34 PM.(LFIG) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
840 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 2 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 107 through 211, inclusive.) proceedings held on 01/20/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/10/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/22/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/19/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
841 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 2 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 212 through 336, inclusive) proceedings held on 01/20/2016, before Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/11/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/22/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/20/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
842 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial [Day 3] held on 1/21/2016. Evidence entered. Trial continued to 1/25/2016. (See attached Minute Entry for details). (Court Reporters David German (AM) and Candy Potter (PM)). Hearing held 9:01 AM to 4:32 PM.(JAMA) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
843 *(AMENDED BY DOC. 845 ) NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 3 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 337 through 336, inclusive) proceedings held on 01/21/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/12/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/22/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/21/2016. (RAP) *Modified on 1/22/2016 (RAP). (Entered: 01/22/2016)
844 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 3 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 472 through 628, inclusive.) proceedings held on 01/21/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/12/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/22/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/21/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 61 of 89

01/22/2016
01/22/2016 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 01/25/2016
01/26/2016 01/27/2016
01/27/2016
01/27/2016

845 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL AMENDED TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 3 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 337 through 471, inclusive) proceedings held on 01/21/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). Page span on title page corrected to reflect accurate end page number. The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/12/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/22/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/21/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
846 NOTICE re: The United States' Rule 1006 Summary Exhibits Nos 286A1 and 286B1 by Colorado City, Town of Joint Notice. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
847 NOTICE re: Filing of Revised Rule 1006 Summaries by United States of America re: 846 Notice (Other) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 286A1, # 2 Exhibit 286B1)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
848 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial [Day 4] held on 1/25/2016. Evidence entered. Trial continued to 1/26/2016. (See attached Minute Entry for details). (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder.) Hearing held 8:58 AM to 11:21 AM. (KAL) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
849 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 4 (Pages 629 through 720, inclusive.) proceedings held on 01/25/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/16/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/25/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/25/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
850 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H. Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day Five) held on 01/26/16. Plaintiff's case continues. See minutes for details. (Court Reporters David German (a.m.) and Candy Potter (p.m.)) Hearing held 8:59 a.m. to 4:23 p.m. (NKS) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
851 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 5 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 721 through 841, inclusive) proceedings held on 01/26/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/17/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/29/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/26/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
852 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 5 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 842 through 980, inclusive.) proceedings held on 01/26/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/17/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/29/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/26/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
853 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 6) held on 1/27/2016. Evidence entered. Trial to resume on 1/28/16. (Court Reporters David German (a.m.) and Linda Schroeder (p.m.)) Hearing held 8:49 AM to 4:27 PM.(KFZ) (Entered: 01/27/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 62 of 89

01/28/2016
01/28/2016
01/28/2016 01/29/2016
01/29/2016
02/01/2016 02/01/2016 02/02/2016

854 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 6 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 981 through 1076, inclusive) proceedings held on 01/27/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/18/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/29/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/27/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
855 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 6 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 1077 through 1202, inclusive.) proceedings held on 01/27/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/18/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/29/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/27/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
856 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 7) held on 1/28/2016. Evidence entered. Trial to resume on Monday, February 1, 2016 at 9:00 AM. (Court Reporters: Candy Potter−AM; Linda Schroeder−PM) Hearing held 9:00 AM to 4:29 PM.(LFIG) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
857 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 7 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 1203 through 1327, inclusive.) proceedings held on 01/28/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/19/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/29/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/28/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
858 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 7 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 1328 through 1466, inclusive.) proceedings held on 01/28/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/19/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/29/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/28/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
859 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 8) held on 2/1/2016. Evidence entered. Trial to resume on 2/2/2016. [Court Reporters: David German (a.m.) and Candy Potter (p.m.)] Hearing held 9:02 AM to 4:24 PM. (KAL) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
860 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America for proceedings held on 1/19/2016 − 2/23/2016, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s). (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
861 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 8 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 1467 through 1589, inclusive) proceedings held on 02/01/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/23/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/4/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/2/2016. (RAP)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 63 of 89

02/02/2016
02/02/2016 02/03/2016
02/03/2016
02/03/2016 02/04/2016
02/04/2016

(Entered: 02/02/2016)
862 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 8 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 1590 through 1729, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/01/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/23/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/4/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/2/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
863 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 9) held on 2/2/2016. Evidence entered. Trial to resume on Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 9:00 AM. (Court Reporters: Linda Schroeder−AM; David German−PM) Hearing held 9:05 AM to 4:22 PM.(LFIG) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
864 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 9 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 1730 through 1845, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/02/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/24/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/7/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/3/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
865 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 9 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 1846 through 1974, inclusive) proceedings held on 02/02/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/24/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/7/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/3/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
866 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial [Day 10] held on 2/3/2016. Evidence entered. Trial is continued to 2/4/2016 [see attached minute entry for details]. (Court Reporters Candy Potter AM / Linda Schroeder PM) Hearing held 9:01 AM to 4:29 PM.(MAW) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
867 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 10 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 1975 through 2100, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/03/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/25/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/7/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/4/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
868 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 10 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 2101 through 2240, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/03/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/25/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/7/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/4/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/04/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 64 of 89

02/04/2016 02/05/2016
02/05/2016
02/08/2016 02/08/2016 02/08/2016
02/08/2016
02/09/2016

869 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 11) held on 2/4/2016. Court to reconvene on 3/8/16 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder.) Hearing held 8:59 AM to 4:28 PM.(CLB) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
870 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 11 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 2241 through 2362, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/04/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/26/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/7/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/5/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
871 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 11 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 2363 through 2504, inclusive) proceedings held on 02/04/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/26/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/7/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/5/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
872 MINUTE ORDER from the Chambers of Judge H Russel Holland. Attached are the court's proposed jury instructions. Counsel will please serve and file any proposed, additional jury instructions on or before the close of business 2/10/16. Counsel will also please serve and file their proposed verdict forms and, if deemed necessary, proposed interrogatories to the jury. The court proposes to have an initial, informal conference with counsel in chambers to discuss proposed jury instructions on 2/12/16 at 9:00 a.m. (see order for further details). (Attachments: # 1 Court's Proposed Jury Instructions) (REW) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
873 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 12) held on 2/8/2016. Evidence entered. Trial to resume on Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 9:00 AM. (Court Reporters: Linda Schroeder−AM; Candy Potter−PM) Hearing held 9:02 AM to 4:33 PM.(LFIG) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
881 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 12 A.M. SESSION (Pages 2505 through 2627, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/08/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/29/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/10/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/9/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
882 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 12 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 2628 through 2788, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/08/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/29/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/10/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/9/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
874 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H. Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 13) held on 02/09/16. Defendants' counsel makes an oral motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50. Oral motion argued. Motion is denied subject to being reexamined at a later time. See minutes for details. (Court Reporters David German (a.m.) and Candy Potter (p.m.)) Hearing held 8:58 a.m. to 3:59 p.m. (NKS)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 65 of 89

02/09/2016
02/09/2016
02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016
02/11/2016

(Entered: 02/09/2016)
883 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 13 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 2789 through 2902, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/09/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/1/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/9/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
884 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 13 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 2903 through 3022, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/09/2016, before Judge H. Russel Holland. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candy L. Potter. The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/1/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/11/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/9/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
875 ORDER Plaintiff's motion 785 to strike Wilson from defendants' witness list is denied; however, plaintiff's alternative request that Wilson's testimony be limited is granted. Wilson's testimony will be limited to those subjects (including opinions) disclosed in the course of Wilson's testimony during the Cooke trial. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 2/10/2016.(KMG) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
876 Joint Proposed Jury Instructions by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
877 Joint Proposed Verdict Form by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
878 TRIAL BRIEF Defendants' Joint Trial Brief Regarding Municipal Liability Under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
879 Proposed Jury Instructions by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A (Modified Proposed Final Jury Instructions), # 2 Attachment B (Additional Proposed Final Jury Instructions), # 3 Attachment C (Proposed Verdict Form))(Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
880 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Municipal Liability by United States of America. (Brett, Sharon) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
885 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 14) held on 2/10/2016. Evidence entered. Trial to resume on 2/11/2016. (Court Reporters Candy Potter (a.m.) and Linda Schroeder (p.m.)) Hearing held 8:58 AM to 4:30 PM.(KFZ) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
886 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 14 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 3023 through 3146, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/10/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/3/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/14/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/11/2016. (RAP) *Date filed modified to 10Feb2016 to reflect actual date filed by court reporter on 2/11/2016 (RAP). (Entered: 02/11/2016)
887 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 14 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 3147 through 3294, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/10/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 66 of 89

02/11/2016 02/12/2016
02/12/2016
02/12/2016 02/16/2016 02/16/2016 02/17/2016 02/17/2016
02/17/2016

Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/3/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/14/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/11/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
888 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial DAY 15 held on 2/11/2016. Jury Trial continues on 2/16/2016 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporters David German AM/ Linda Schroeder PM.) Hearing held 9:00 AM to 4:18 PM.(TCA) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
889 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 15 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 3295 through 3416, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/11/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/4/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/14/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/12/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
890 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 15 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 3417 through 3553, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/11/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/4/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/14/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/12/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
891 ORDER − For the reasons and upon the authorities discussed by the United States in its brief 880 , the court concludes that defendants' proposed Instruction No. 15 (Doc. 797 at 22) should not be given. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 2/12/2016. (See Order for complete details.)(KMG) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
892 NOTICE FROM THE CHAMBERS OF JUDGE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND Re Revision of Proposed Jury Instructions. (Attachments: # 1 Revised Proposed Jury Instruction)(MAP) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
893 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H. Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 16) held on 02/16/16. See minutes for details. (Court Reporter David German (a.m.) and Linda Schroeder (p.m.)) Hearing held 8:55 a.m. to 4:27 p.m. (NKS) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
894 MINUTE ORDER from Chambers: The clerk is directed to redact reference of the name of Juror No. 5 from the record and to substitute instead the juror's number. (LAD) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
895 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 16 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 3554 through 3682, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/16/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/9/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/21/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/17/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
896 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 16 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 3683 through 3812, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/16/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 67 of 89

02/17/2016 02/17/2016 02/17/2016
02/18/2016
02/18/2016 02/18/2016
02/19/2016

Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/9/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/21/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/17/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
897 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Natalie Mollerup of Dewsnup, King & Olsen for Trial Testimony of Willie Jessop proceedings held on 01/26/2016, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s). (RAP) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
898 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 17) held on 2/17/2016. Evidence entered. Trial to continue on 2/18/2016 at 9:00 AM. (See attached Minute Entry for details.) (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder (a.m.)/David German (p.m.).) Hearing held 9:00 AM to 4:25 PM.(MMO) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
899 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 17 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 3813 through 3916, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/17/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/9/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/21/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/17/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
900 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 17 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 3917 through 4061, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/17/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/10/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/21/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/18/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
901 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial [Day 18] held on 2/18/2016. Evidence entered. Trial continued to 2/22/2016. (See attached Minute Entry for details). (Court Reporter David German (AM) and Linda Schroeder (PM)). Hearing held 9:00 AM to 4:34 PM.(JAMA) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
903 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 18 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 4062 through 4171, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/18/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/10/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/21/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/18/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
904 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 18 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 4172 through 4311, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/18/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/11/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/21/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/19/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/22/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 68 of 89

02/22/2016 02/22/2016 02/22/2016
02/23/2016 02/24/2016
02/24/2016 02/25/2016
02/29/2016 02/29/2016
03/01/2016

902 Proposed Verdict Form by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
905 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 19) held on 2/22/2016. Trial to resume on Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporter: Candy Potter.) Hearing held 9:00 AM to 1:06 PM.(LFIG) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
907 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 19 (Pages 4312 through 4378, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/22/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/14/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/24/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/23/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
906 MINUTE ORDER: On the Court's own motion, trial is in recess February 24−February 26, 2016. Jury Trial to reconvene on Monday, February 29, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (LFIG) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
908 MINUTE ORDER from Chambers − The jury trial in this case is scheduled to reconvene at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, February 29, 2016. The court proposes to have an informal conference with counsel in chambers to review the jury instructions at the end of the trial day on Monday, February 29, 2016. Attached is the recent draft of the court's proposed jury instructions, together with two proposed alternate instructions. The court has not yet had an opportunity to do a final review of the attachments, but expects to do a review before meeting with counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Recent Set of Revised Jury Instructions, # 2 Proposed Alternate Jury Instructions)(LAD) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
909 Supplemental Proposed Verdict Form by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
910 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL EXCERPTED TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 5 − P.M. SESSION (Testimony of Willie Jessop) proceedings held on 01/26/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/17/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/28/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/25/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
911 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 20) held on 2/29/2016. Evidence entered. Trial to resume on 3/1/2016. (Court Reporters: Linda Schroeder (a.m.) and David German (p.m.)) Hearing held 8:57 AM to 4:30 PM.(KFZ) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
915 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 20 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 4379 through 4485, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/29/2016, before *Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/21/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/31/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/31/2016. (RAP) *Modified on 3/3/2016 (RAP). (Entered: 03/02/2016)
912 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (Day 21) held on 3/1/2016. Evidence entered. Trial to resume on Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:45 a.m. (Court Reporters: David German−AM; Candy Potter−PM)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 69 of 89

03/01/2016
03/01/2016
03/01/2016
03/02/2016 03/02/2016 03/02/2016
03/02/2016

Hearing held 9:00 AM to 4:37 PM.(LFIG) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
916 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 20 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 4486 through 4621, inclusive.) proceedings held on 02/29/2016, before *Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/22/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/1/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/31/2016. (RAP) *Modified on 3/3/2016 (RAP). (Entered: 03/02/2016)
917 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 21 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 4622 through 4749, inclusive.) proceedings held on 03/01/2016, before *Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/22/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/1/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/31/2016. (RAP) *Modified on 3/3/2016 (RAP). (Entered: 03/02/2016)
918 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 21 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 4750 through 4892, inclusive.) proceedings held on 03/01/2016, before *Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/22/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/1/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/31/2016. (RAP) *Modified on 3/3/2016 (RAP). (Entered: 03/02/2016)
913 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − Filed concurrent herewith are the final jury instructions regarding the above case. (Attachments: # 1 Jury Instructions)(KMG) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
914 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial DAY 22 held on 3/2/2016. Jury deliberations continue on 3/3/2016 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder/Candy Potter.) Hearing held 8:45 AM to 2:43 PM.(TCA) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
919 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 22 − A.M. SESSION (Pages 4893 through 5009, inclusive.) proceedings held on 03/02/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/23/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/4/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/31/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
920 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 22 − P.M. SESSION (Pages 5010 through 5074, inclusive.) proceedings held on 03/02/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/23/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/4/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/31/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 03/03/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 70 of 89

03/03/2016 03/04/2016 03/04/2016
03/07/2016
03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016
03/07/2016 03/07/2016
03/17/2016 03/25/2016
04/18/2016

921 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (deliberations) held on 3/3/2016. Jury deliberates and will resume deliberations on 3/4/2016 at 9:00 AM. (CLB) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
922 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial (deliberations) held on 3/4/2016. Jury deliberates and will resume deliberations on 3/7/2016 at 9:00 a.m. (LMR) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
933 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 5 − A.M. SESSION (TESTIMONY OF WILLIE JESSOP) proceedings held on 01/26/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/25/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/4/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/2/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
923 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Jury Trial [Day 25] completed on 3/7/2016. THE COURT ORDERS the parties to file a proposed schedule within 10 days. (See attached Minute Entry). (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder.) Hearing held 8:50 AM to 2:38 PM.(JAMA) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
924 Sealed Verdict. (LAD) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
925 Jury Notes/Questions (public document). (KMG) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
926 Jury Notes/Questions (public document). (KMG) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
927 Witness List by United States of America. (KMG) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
928 Witness List by Colorado City, Town of. (KMG) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
929 Exhibit List by United States of America. (KMG) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
930 Exhibit List by Colorado City, Town of. (KMG) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
931 MINUTE ORDER: that the exhibits marked, whether or not received as evidence, in the above−entitled case at the time of the trial are returned to respective counsel. Counsel/agents are directed to retain custody of the exhibits until the case has been completely terminated, including all appeals, pursuant to LRCiv 79.1. (KMG) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
932 JURY VERDICT. (KMG) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
934 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of JURY TRIAL − DAY 25 (Pages 5075 through 5095, inclusive.) proceedings held on 03/07/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/28/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/7/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/6/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
935 NOTICE re: Joint Proposed Post−Trial Schedule by United States of America . (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
936 ORDER, Case Scheduling (Post−Trial Schedule): (see order for complete details). Non−Jury Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/24/2016 at 09:00 AM (in courtroom to be determined) in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge H Russel Holland. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/25/16. (REW) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
937 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment (Settlement Agreement) by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Settlement Agreement)(Savner, Emily) (Entered: 04/18/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 71 of 89

04/19/2016
04/29/2016 05/31/2016
06/15/2016 06/21/2016 07/15/2016
07/15/2016 07/15/2016 07/18/2016 07/26/2016 07/29/2016 07/29/2016 07/29/2016 08/02/2016 08/02/2016 08/03/2016 08/04/2016 08/04/2016

938 ORDER that the settlement agreement is approved and adopted by the court as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of all of the plaintiff's monetary and civil penalty claims in this case. The parties shall proceed as agreed with the funding of the settlement agreement. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 4/19/16. (Attachments: # 1 Settlement Agreement)(LSP) (Entered: 04/19/2016)
939 OPENING BRIEF by United States of America Regarding Injunctive Relief. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3 (part 1), # 4 Exhibit 3 (part 2))(Savner, Emily) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
940 RESPONSE BRIEF by Colorado City, Town of Defendants' Joint Response to the United States' Post−Trial Brief Regarding Injunctive Relief. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−5, # 2 Exhibit 6−9, # 3 Exhibit 10−19)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
941 REPLY BRIEF by United States of America to Defendants' Joint Response to the United States' Post−Trial Brief Regarding Injunctive Relief. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
942 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
943 STATEMENT of Defendants' Joint Witness and Exhibit Lists for Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Injunctive Relief re: 936 Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
944 Witness List by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
945 Exhibit List by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B)(Savner, Emily) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
946 SUPPLEMENT to Joint Response to the United States' Post−Trial Brief Regarding Injunctive Relief re: 940 Brief − Response by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
947 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) *Referenced attachments not submitted − attorney notified on 7/27/2016 (REK). (Entered: 07/26/2016)
948 NOTICE re: Joint Schedule of Post−Trial Depositions by United States of America . (Attachments: # 1 Schedule of Depositions)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
949 NOTICE re: U.S. Objections to Defendants' Post−Trial Remedy Hearing Exhibit List by United States of America re: 943 Statement . (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Ex. List with U.S. Objections)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
950 OBJECTION re: 945 Exhibit List Defendants' Objections to The United States' Post−Trial Remedy Hearing Exhibit List by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
951 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Subpoena by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
952 MOTION to Expedite Review of United States' Motion to Compel Defendants to Comply with Subpoena by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Savner, Emily) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
953 ORDER FROM THE CHAMBERS OF JUDGE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND granting 952 Motion for Expedited Consideration. Defendants shall respond no later than noon (Mountain Standard Time) on Friday, August 5, 2016. (MAP) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
954 NOTICE of Deposition of Barlow, Darger, and Johnson, filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
955 NOTICE of Deposition of Sgt. Taylor Nelson, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 72 of 89

08/04/2016 08/04/2016 08/05/2016 08/08/2016
08/18/2016 08/26/2016 09/08/2016 09/08/2016 09/08/2016 09/08/2016 09/08/2016 09/08/2016 09/09/2016 09/09/2016 09/09/2016 09/09/2016 09/09/2016 09/09/2016 09/09/2016 09/09/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/19/2016

956 NOTICE of Deposition of Arnold Richter, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
957 NOTICE of Deposition of Don Timpson, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
958 RESPONSE to Motion re: 951 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Subpoena filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
959 ORDER Plaintiff's motion 951 to compel defendants to comply further with plaintiff's subpoena is denied. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 8/8/2016.(KMG) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
960 NOTICE of Deposition of Dale Miller, Ken Brendel & Keith Sobraske, filed by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
961 NOTICE of Deposition of Shaffer, Hall, Darger, and Forbes, filed by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
962 NOTICE of Deposition of Jack Harris, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
963 NOTICE of Deposition of Travis Meadows, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
964 NOTICE of Deposition of Russel Rader, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
965 NOTICE of Deposition (Amended) of Travis Meadows, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) Modified on 9/9/2016 (KMG). (Entered: 09/08/2016)
966 NOTICE of Deposition (Amended) of Jack Harris, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) Modified on 9/9/2016 (KMG). (Entered: 09/08/2016)
967 NOTICE of Deposition (Amended) of Russel Rader, filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) Modified on 9/9/2016 (KMG). (Entered: 09/08/2016)
968 NOTICE of Deposition of Brock Belnap, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
969 NOTICE of Deposition of Cory Pulsipher, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
970 NOTICE of Deposition of Isaac Wyler, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
971 NOTICE of Deposition of Jeff Barlow, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
972 NOTICE of Deposition of Jethro Barlow, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
973 NOTICE of Deposition of Justin Grenier, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
974 NOTICE of Deposition of Zach Renstrom, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
975 NOTICE of Deposition of Zach Shields, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
976 NOTICE of Deposition of James Schoppmann, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/12/2016)
977 NOTICE of Deposition of Rodney Head, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/12/2016)
978 ORDER (Case Status) re: 938 Order. The court proposes to enter the appended, proposed order, dismissing the first cause of action stated in plaintiff's complaint as between the plaintiff and defendants regarding the Fair Housing Act claim. Because a settlement was reached, the court proposes that this dismissal be with prejudice as to

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 73 of 89

09/19/2016 09/22/2016 09/22/2016 09/23/2016 09/26/2016 10/03/2016 10/06/2016
10/07/2016 10/07/2016 10/11/2016 10/17/2016
10/19/2016 10/19/2016 10/19/2016 10/20/2016

the Fair Housing Act claim. Counsel will please confer and, on or before October 3, 2016, provide the court with their joint comments, if any, with respect to the appropriateness of the court's proposed order and with respect to the status of plaintiff's third cause of action. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 9/19/2016. (ATD) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
979 NOTICE of Deposition of Daniel Rondeau, Martin Blaustein, and Dan Corsentino, filed by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
980 NOTICE of Deposition of Tami Goodin, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
981 NOTICE of Deposition of Karen Kener, filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
982 NOTICE of Deposition of Tami Goodin (Amended), filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/23/2016)
983 ORDER (supplement) re: 936 Case Scheduling Order (see document for further details). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 9/26/16. (KGM) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
984 RESPONSE re: 978 Order, Set Deadlines (Joint Response to Proposed Order) by Plaintiff United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
985 ORDER re: Case Status: The court is in receipt of the parties' joint status report of October 3, 2016. The parties are in agreement, and the court understands that, plaintiff will be going forward with a claim for injunctive relief as to the Fair Housing Act side of this case. Thus the court will, after an evidentiary hearing, be deciding whether or not plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief under one or both of the Fair Housing Act and 42 U.S.C.§ 14141. The court concurs in the parties view that no further action need be taken for purposes of resolving the United States' claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2004b. That claim was previously dismissed, and the plaintiff declined to file an amended claim under Section 2000b. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/6/16. (KGM) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
986 Witness List by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
987 *Witness List and Exhibit List by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A (Exhibit List))(Savner, Emily) *Modified to add Exhibit List on 10/11/2016 (EJA). (Entered: 10/07/2016)
988 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Any Testimonial or Documentary Evidence Relating to the Colorado City Dispatch Center by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
989 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS: The court is in receipt of 988 Defendant's MOTION in Limine to Preclude Any Testimonial or Documentary Evidence Relating to the Colorado City Dispatch Center filed on October 11, 2016. Plaintiff's response shall be served and filed no later than noon (Mountain Standard Time) on Thursday, October 20, 2016. (EJA) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
990 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Colorado City, Town of for proceedings held on 10/24/16−10/27/16, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s). (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
991 STATEMENT of Defendants' Joint Deposition Designations for the Evidentiary Hearing by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
992 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America for proceedings held on 10/24/2016 − 10/27/2016, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s). (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
993 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 988 MOTION in Limine re: to Preclude Any Testimonial or Documentary Evidence Relating to the Colorado City Dispatch Center filed by United States of America. (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 10/20/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 74 of 89

10/21/2016 994 RESPONSE re: 991 Statement of Defendants' Joint Deposition Designations by Plaintiff United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 10/21/2016)

10/24/2016

995 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Evidentiary Hearing − Day 1 − held on 10/24/2016. 988 Motion in Limine DENIED. Evidentiary Hearing to continue on 10/25/2016. (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder.) Hearing held 8:59 AM to 4:10 PM.(LMR) (Entered: 10/24/2016)

10/25/2016

996 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Evidentiary Hearing (Day 2) held on 10/25/2016. Evidentiary Hearing to continue on 10/26/2016. (Court Reporter David German.) Hearing held 9:00 AM to 4:18 PM.(LFIG) (Entered: 10/25/2016)

10/26/2016

997 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Evidentiary Hearing (Day 3) held on 10/26/2016. Evidence entered. Evidentiary Hearing to continue on 10/27/2016 at 9:00 AM. (See attached Minute Entry for details.) (Court Reporter David German.) Hearing held 9:00 AM to 4:41 PM.(MMO) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

10/27/2016

998 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H Russel Holland: Evidentiary Hearing [Day 4] Completed on 10/27/2016 [See attached Minute Entry for details]. (Court Reporter Candy Potter) Hearing held 9:00 AM to 4:40 PM.(MAW) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/27/2016 999 Witness List by United States of America. (KGM) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/27/2016 1000 Witness List by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (KGM) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/27/2016 1001 Exhibit List by United States of America. (KGM) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/27/2016 1002 Exhibit List by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (KGM) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/28/2016 1003 ORDER RE: EXHIBITS. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 10/28/16. (CLB) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/28/2016

1004

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of EVIDENTIARY HEARING − DAY 1 proceedings held on 10/24/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/18/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/28/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/26/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 11/03/2016)

11/01/2016

1009

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of EVIDENTIARY HEARING − DAY 2 (Pages 254 through 520, inclusive) proceedings held on 10/25/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/22/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/2/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/30/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 11/09/2016)

11/01/2016

1010

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of EVIDENTIARY HEARING − DAY 3 (Pages 521 through 781, inclusive) proceedings held on 10/26/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: David C. German). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/22/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/2/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/30/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 11/09/2016)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 75 of 89

11/02/2016

1011

*(AMENDED BY DOC. 1012 ) NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of EVIDENTIARY HEARING − DAY 4 (Pages 782 through 1059) proceedings held on 10/27/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/23/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/5/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/31/2017. (RAP) *Modified to reference amended version on 11/10/2016 (RAP). (Entered: 11/09/2016)

11/02/2016

1012

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL AMENDED TRANSCRIPT of EVIDENTIARY HEARING − DAY 4 (Pages 782 through 1059) proceedings held on 10/27/2016, before Senior Judge H. Russel Holland. (Court Reporter: Candy L. Potter). Amended to correct date on the certificate page. The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/23/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/5/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/31/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/04/2016 1005 Joint MOTION Regarding Post Remedy Hearing Schedule re: 983 Order by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 11/04/2016)

11/07/2016 1006 NOTICE re: of Filing of Deposition Designations by United States of America . (Keveney, Sean) (Entered: 11/07/2016)

11/07/2016 1007 STATEMENT of Defendants' Joint Supplemental Deposition Designations for the Evidentiary Hearing by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/07/2016)

11/09/2016

1008

ORDER: For the reasons the parties have indicated in their joint motion 1005 , and for good cause shown, the court amends that schedule to the following: United States' Opening Brief: Friday, December 9, 2016, Defendants' Opening Response: Monday, January 9, 2017, and United States' Reply: Tuesday, January 24, 2017. See document for details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 11/8/16.(EJA) (Entered: 11/09/2016)

11/14/2016 1013 *RESPONSE re: 1007 Defendants' Supplemental Deposition Designations by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) *Modified to correct event type on 11/15/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 11/14/2016)

11/14/2016 1014 STATEMENT of Defendants' Joint Objections and Counter−Designations to the United States' Deposition Designations for the Evidentiary Hearing re: 1006 Notice (Other) by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/14/2016)

11/21/2016 1015 RESPONSE re: 1014 Statement of United States' Objections to Defendants' Counter−Designations and the United States Additional Designations by Plaintiff United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/21/2016 1016 RESPONSE re: 1013 Notice (Other) Defendants' Joint Objections to United States' Counter−Designations to Deposition Designations for the Evidentiary Hearing by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/28/2016

1017

MINUTE ORDER FROM THE CHAMBERS OF H. RUSSEL HOLLAND: The court has completed a preliminary review of exhibits admitted at the evidentiary hearing held in October. The court has identified seven exhibits with defense exhibit numbers which appear not to have been included in either plaintiff's exhibit books nor defendants' exhibit books. The exhibits in question were all admitted on October 24 or 25 in connection with testimony of plaintiff's witnesses. Inasmuch as the exhibits in question have defense numbers, the court presumes that counsel for defendants have the original admitted exhibits. The exhibits in question are: No. 3429, No. 3452, No. 3457, No. 3462, No. 3493, No. 3494, and No. 3507. Unless counsel agree otherwise, counsel for defendants will please forward to the court copies of the foregoing exhibits for the court's use during the decision−making process. (REK) (Entered:

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 76 of 89

11/28/2016)

12/05/2016

1018

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS of Judge H Russel Holland: Counsel for each of plaintiff and defendants will please take responsibility for providing the court with the appropriate out−takes from the depositions of their respective witnesses whose testimony is being received and considered by designation. Counsel need not include portions of the depositions not designated by anyone. The excerpts from the depositions for each witness appearing by deposition shall be preceded by a cover sheet with the name of each witness, and an exhibit number shall be assigned to each compilation of designations. One copy of all of the foregoing shall be forwarded by counsel to the clerk for docketing as a part of the record in this case. A duplicate copy shall be forwarded to chambers at Anchorage. (KGM) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/05/2016 1019 NOTICE re: Delivery of Exhibits by Colorado City, Town of re: 1017 Order . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/06/2016 1020 NOTICE re: of Delivery of Deposition Transcripts by United States of America re: 1018 Order . (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 12/06/2016)

12/08/2016 1021 NOTICE re: Defendants' Joint Notice of Delivery of Deposition Trascripts by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated re: 1018 Order . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 12/08/2016)

12/09/2016 1022 OPENING BRIEF by United States of America re. Injunctive Relief. (Attachments: # 1 Att. A (Proposed Order), # 2 Att. B (Digest of Proposed Findings of Fact), # 3 Att. C (Arizona POST Complaints))(Savner, Emily) (Entered: 12/09/2016)

01/09/2017 1023 RESPONSE BRIEF by Colorado City, Town of Defendants' Joint Closing Argument re Injunctive Relief. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Part 1, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Part 2, # 5 Exhibit 3 − Part 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/23/2017 1024 ORDER FFROM CHAMBERS − Counsel for plaintiff will please do what is necessary to locate or replace Volumes 1 and 2 of plaintiff's first trial exhibits. See PDF document for details. (LSP) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

01/23/2017 1025 NOTICE re: Delivery of Admitted Trial and Evidentiary Hearing Exhibits by Colorado City, Town of . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

01/24/2017 1026 NOTICE re: Arizona POST Actions Regarding CCMO Officers by United States of America . (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Savner, Emily) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

01/24/2017 1027 REPLY BRIEF by United States of America re. Injunctive Relief. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

02/16/2017

1028

Joint MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response to The United States' Closing Brief and Clarification Regarding Arizona POST's Actions with the CCMO by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit A, Part 1, # 3 Exhibit A, Part 2, # 4 Exhibit B, Part 1, # 5 Exhibit B, Part 2, # 6 Exhibit C−E, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/16/2017)

02/16/2017

1029

LODGED Proposed Defendants' Joint Supplement to Their Response to the United States' Closing Brief and Clarification Regarding Arizona POST's Actions with the CCMO re: 1028 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response to The United States' Closing Brief and Clarification Regarding Arizona POST's Actions with the CCMO . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A, Part 2, # 3 Exhibit B, Part 1, # 4 Exhibit B, Part 2, # 5 Exhibit C−E)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/16/2017)

03/01/2017 1030 RESPONSE to Motion re: 1028 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response to The United States' Closing Brief and Clarification Regarding Arizona POST's Actions with the CCMO filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 03/01/2017)

03/14/2017 1031 ORDER denying 1028 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/14/17.(KGM) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 77 of 89

03/15/2017 1032 SEALED ORDER − NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENT. See Order for Full Details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 3/14/17. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (cc: All Active Parties/Counsel)(MAP) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/23/2017 1033 *NOTICE of Attorney Appearance/Substitution − USA by Katharine Farrell Towt on behalf of United States of America. (Towt, Katharine) *Modified to correct event type on 3/23/2017 (KGM). (Entered: 03/23/2017)

04/03/2017 1034 Joint MOTION to Seal Document RE: Sealed Order − Notice and Request for Comment, ECF No. 1032 by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

04/03/2017

1035

***FILED at (Doc. 1037 )−−SEALED LODGED Proposed Joint Notice re: 1034 Joint MOTION to Seal Document RE: Sealed Order − Notice and Request for Comment, ECF No. 1032. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) Modified on 4/5/2017 (ATD). (Entered: 04/03/2017)

04/05/2017 1036 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS granting the parties' 1034 motion to file requested comments under seal. The parties should file the requested comments under seal. (ATD) (Entered: 04/05/2017)

04/05/2017 1037 *SEALED JOINT NOTICE of Proposed Modifications by United States of America. (ATD) *Modified on 4/6/2017 to add "Sealed" to docket text (ATD). (Entered: 04/05/2017)

04/06/2017 1038 Joint MOTION to Seal Document by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

04/06/2017

1039

*FILED at Doc. 1042 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Defendants' Proposed Modifications to the Court's Injunctive Order re: 1038 Joint MOTION to Seal Document . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) *Modified on 4/7/2017 (MAP).* (Entered: 04/06/2017)

04/06/2017

1040

*FILED at Doc. {1043]*SEALED LODGED Proposed United States' Notice re: 1034 Joint MOTION to Seal Document RE: Sealed Order − Notice and Request for Comment, ECF No. 1032. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) *Modified on 4/7/2017 (MAP)*. (Entered: 04/06/2017)

04/07/2017 1041 ORDER FROM THE CHAMBERS OF JUDGE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND granting 1038 Motion to Seal. Defendants shall file the requested comments 1039 under seal. Further, plaintiff's proposed modifications 1040 shall also be filed under seal.(MAP) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017 1042 Sealed Proposed Modifications to the Court's Injunctive Order by Colorado City, Town of. (MAP) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017 1043 Sealed Notice of Proposed Modifications by United States of America. (MAP) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/11/2017

1044

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS of Judge H Russel Holland: In the course of reviewing the parties' proposed modifications to the court's injunctive order, it occurred to the court that it might be useful to include the identity and address of persons entitled to receive notice in connection with any ongoing proceedings. The court proposes to add at the end of the order granting injunctive relief the following paragraph: Communications in furtherance of the implementation, compliance, or enforcement of remedies shall be directed as follows: Sean Richard Keveney for Plaintiff, and Jeffrey Charles Matura and R. Blake Hamilton for Defendants (see document for further details). (KGM) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/11/2017 1045 Joint MOTION to Seal Document by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/11/2017 1046 *FILED at Doc. 1050 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Defendants' Responses to the United States' Proposed Modifications to the Court's Injunctive Order re: 1045 Joint MOTION to Seal Document . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 78 of 89

1)(Matura, Jeffrey) *Modified on 4/13/2017 (MAP)*. (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/11/2017

1047

*FILED at Doc, 1051 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Notice of Response to Defendants' Proposed Modifications re: 1034 Joint MOTION to Seal Document RE: Sealed Order − Notice and Request for Comment, ECF No. 1032. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by United States of America. (Donnelly, Matthew) *Modified on 4/13/2017 (MAP)*. (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/12/2017 1048 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS of H Russel Holland: Counsel for defendants will please provide the court with the address to be used for notices/reports to each of the Defendant Cities. (KGM) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

04/13/2017 1049 ORDER FROM THE CHAMBERS OF H. RUSSEL HOLLAND granting 1045 Joint Motion to Seal. Defendants' responses to the United States' proposed modifications shall be filed under seal. Further, plaintiff's responses in opposition to defendants' proposed modifications shall also be filed under seal. (MAP) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

04/13/2017 1050 SEALED RESPONSE to the United States Proposed Modifications to the Court's Injunctive Order re: 1043 by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(MAP) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

04/13/2017 1051 SEALED Notice of Response (Objections) to Defendants' Proposed Modifications by United States of America. (MAP) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

04/13/2017 1052 NOTICE re: Contact Information for Defendant Cities and Their Counsel by Colorado City, Town of . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

04/18/2017

1053

***AMENDED in Part by (Doc. 1089 )−−JUDGMENT AND DECREE re: PERMANENT INJUNCTION: Colorado City and the City of Hildale (including the CCMO), their officers, employees, and agents, and their successors and all persons inactive concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined as follows: they shall not engage in any conduct that violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; or violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including the right of individuals to be free from unreasonable seizures of property and arrests without probable cause; or violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court shall appoint, using the procedures set forth below, one or more monitors (Monitor) who shall have the authorities and responsibilities as set forth in this Order. The Defendant Cities shall be responsible for maintaining and preserving, or supervising the maintenance and preservation, of all records, including but not limited to electronic records and files, created in association with complying with this injunction. This court has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 3614. The court shall retain jurisdiction over this case to enforce the terms of this judgment and injunction. The injunctive relief granted by this judgment and decree shall be in effect immediately upon entry. Except as expressly provided otherwise, the injunctive relief(Section V(B) and V(C)) shall remain in effect for ten years or until otherwise ordered by the court. The United States shall submit its petition for costs within 90 days of the entry of this injunction. All parties shall be responsible for their own attorney fees (see document for further details). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 4/18/17. (KGM) Modified on 8/1/2017 (ATD). (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017

1054

ORDER re: Modifications to Proposed Injunctive Relief: The parties' discussion of the role of a court−appointed, Fair Housing Act Monitor as regards policing services deserves some further comment. As circulated to the parties, the court's proposed injunction would have limited the Monitor to non−policing housing matters. Although the parties could not have known this, that restriction on the authority of the Monitor would be inconsistent with the court's findings with respect to violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by the Defendant Cities' CCMO. Those findings demonstrate that there was an intersection between CCMO policing and access to housing. CCMO officers' treatment of non−FLDS church members as regards the enforcement of occupancy agreements issued by the UEP Trust violated the Equal Protection Clause. As a consequence, and for purposes of enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, the Monitor's duties must include oversight of policing services related to access to housing. The Monitor's duties are not limited to non−law enforcement aspects in terms of the injunction. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 79 of 89

4/18/17. (KGM) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

05/18/2017 1055 REPORT of Joint Report Regarding Subdivision Issues re: 1053 by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/18/2017)

05/22/2017

1056

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS: The court acknowledges receipt of the parties' report to the court with respect to the resolution of issues regarding a subdivision plat for Colorado City. See Fair Housing Act injunction1 at 32, Sec. V.C(2). On or before May 31, 2017, the Defendant Cities will please confirm that they have repealed outdated water service access regulations. Id. at 35, Sec. V.C (9). (EJA) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/30/2017 1057 NOTICE re: Agreed−Upon Policing Consultant and Mentor by United States of America . (Attachments: # 1 Keith Resume, # 2 Flowers Resume)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 05/30/2017)

05/31/2017 1058 REPORT of Repealing Outdated Water Service Regulations Defendants' Joint Report Regarding Repealing Outdated Water Service Regulations re: 1053 , 1056 by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/31/2017)

06/01/2017

1059

MINUTE ORDER FROM THE CHAMBERS OF H. RUSSEL HOLLAND: The court has received and reviewed the parties' joint notice 1057 of their agreement upon a policing Consultant and Mentor in furtherance of the defendants' compliance with the court's judgment and decree of April 18, 2017. 1053 The court is impressed with the qualifications of Chief Jim Keith and Chief Robert Flowers, and expects to approve their assuming the positions of Consultant and Mentor as to policing for the Defendant Cities. Before final approval, however, the court desires to review the job description for each of the two positions, which the court assumes will be in their respective contracts. Counsel for defendants will please provide the court with copies of the contracts in question, which shall be filed under seal. (REK) (Entered: 06/01/2017)

06/19/2017 1060 *STIPULATION/ NOTICE re: Stipulated Extension Re: Deadline to File Second Joint Report on Subdivision Issues by Colorado City, Town of re: 1053 Judgment, Permanent Injunction . (Matura, Jeffrey) *Modified to correct event on 6/20/2017 (REK). (Entered: 06/19/2017)

06/19/2017 1061 EX PARTE Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/19/2017)

06/19/2017 1062 *Joint Notice of Filing Proposed Contracts. Filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Matura, Jeffrey) *Modified from lodged to filed per Doc. 1059 on 6/20/2017 (SCH). (Entered: 06/19/2017)

06/20/2017 1063 ORDER: The motion to extend time is granted 1061 . Defendants shall have an additional 30 days until July 19, 2017 to file any notice of appeal. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 6/20/2017. (REK) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

06/20/2017

1064

ORDER: The parties' Notice of Stipulated Extension re Deadline to File Second Joint Report on Subdivision Issues, 1060 filed June 1, 2017, is approved. Accordingly, the deadline for the parties to submit the second joint report is extended to Thursday, June 22, 2017. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 6/20/2017. (REK) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

06/20/2017 1065 NOTICE re: of Service of Amended Water Regulations and Training Provider by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

06/22/2017

1066

ORDER re: 1057 Notice, 1062 Notice of Filing Proposed Contracts: Having reviewed the resumes of Chief Keith and Chief Flowers and the proposed contracts, which have been reviewed and approved by plaintiff, the defendants' selection of a policing consultant and mentor is approved. The contracts shall be executed by the parties within 15 days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 6/21/2017. (ATD) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 80 of 89

06/22/2017

1067

ORDER Case Status − Defendants will please inform the court when amendments to the water service regulations have been have been approved. If the parties fail to agree on the identification of an engineer, the matter is to be submitted to the court by June 29, 2017. Defendants will please inform the court as to the status of this matter on or before June 29, 2017. See document for details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 6/21/2017. (ATD) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/22/2017 1068 REPORT of Regarding Subdivision Issues re: 1053 by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/28/2017

1069

ORDER re: Subdivision Issues: Final changes to the Short Creek Subdivision plat consistent with the foregoing shall be effected forthwith, and Colorado City and the UEP Trust shall sign off on the final plat and deliver it for recording by the UEP Trust. The court assumes that 30 days should be a sufficient amount of time to effect the foregoing. If for any reason the recordable Short Creek Subdivision plat has not been delivered to the UEP Trust for recording by July 28, 2017, counsel will please confer and advise the court concerning the current status of this matter. See document for further details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 6/27/2017. (REK) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

06/29/2017 1070 *NOTICE re: Joint Notice Regarding Proposed Water Engineer by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Resume)(Hamilton, R) *Modified to add additional filer on 6/30/2017 (REK). (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/29/2017 1071 NOTICE re: Proposed Water Engineer by United States of America . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Towt, Katharine) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/30/2017

1072

MINUTE ORDER FROM THE CHAMBERS OF H. RUSSEL HOLLAND: The parties' proposal for submission of responses regarding the selection of a water engineer 1070 and 1071 by July 6, 2017, is approved. On a related matter, plaintiff will please advise the court as to the status of defendants' proposed water regulations by July 13, 2017. (REK) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

07/06/2017 1073 RESPONSE re: 1071 Notice (Other) Joint Response to United States' Proposed Water Engineers by Defendants Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Alpha Engineering Proposal)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/06/2017)

07/06/2017 1074 NOTICE re: Joint Notice Regarding Consultant and Mentor Contracts by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated . (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/06/2017)

07/06/2017 1075 NOTICE re: Response to Defendants' Joint Notice Regarding Proposed Water Engineer by United States of America re: 1070 Notice (Other) . (Towt, Katharine) (Entered: 07/06/2017)

07/12/2017 1076 ORDER re Appointment of Water Engineer: Brent Gardner of Alpha Engineering Company is appointed water engineer for purposes of performing the water study described in Alpha Engineering's "scope of work." See document for complete details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 7/11/2017. (ATD) (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/12/2017 1077 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS: Counsel will please confer and on, or before July 26, 2017, provide the court with a status report re: non−discriminatory policies and procedures governing the operation of the Defendant Cities' building department as prescribed in the Court's 1053 Judgment and Decree. (ATD) (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/13/2017 1078 *NOTICE of Status of Defendants' Proposed Water Regulations re: 1072 Minute Order by United States of America . (Donnelly, Matthew) *Modified on 7/14/2017 to add document linkage (ATD). (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/17/2017 1079 STIPULATION Regarding Deadline to Complete Required Training by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017 1080 STATUS REPORT Joint Notice regarding City Websites by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 81 of 89

07/17/2017 1081 NOTICE re: Defendants' Joint Correction to United States' Notice of Status of Defendants' Proposed Water Regulations by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated re: 1078 Notice (Other) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Emails between the parties)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017 1082 BILL OF COSTS by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit)(Towt, Katharine) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/19/2017 1083 NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 1053 Judgment, Permanent Injunction by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970−14455026. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/19/2017)

07/19/2017 1084 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 07/19/2017)

07/21/2017 1085 USCA Case Number re: 1083 Notice of Appeal, Ninth Circuit Case number 17−16472. (LSP) (Entered: 07/21/2017)

07/26/2017 1086 NOTICE re: Status of Defendants Proposed Building Department Policies by United States of America re: 1077 Order, Set Deadlines . (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/26/2017)

07/27/2017 1087 NOTICE re: Joint Notice of Agreed−Upon Monitor by United States of America . (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Towt, Katharine) (Entered: 07/27/2017)

07/31/2017 1088 OBJECTION/ANSWER/RESPONSE to BILL OF COSTS re: 1082 by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

08/01/2017

1089

ORDER re Completion of Required Training: Pursuant to the 1079 Stipulation, the parties have reached an agreement with respect to certain modification to the court's mandatory education and training requirements. The court's 1053 Judgment and Decree is amended as set forth in this Order. Except as specifically provided, all other terms of the 1053 Judgment and Decree with respect to mandatory education and training will apply. The parties shall provide the court with an updated status report on or before October 13, 2017. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 8/1/2017. (ATD) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/02/2017 1090 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendants' Joint Response to the United States' Memorandum in Support of its Bill of Costs and Joint Objection to Bill of Costs by United States of America. (Towt, Katharine) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

08/03/2017 1091 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS granting 1090 Motion for Leave to File; the reply to be filed by August 14, 2017.(KAS) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/03/2017

1092

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − The court is in receipt of plaintiff's report regarding proposed water regulations, and the defendants' further report on the status of water regulations and application form. The requirements of Section V.C. (9), et seq.,(amendments to water service regulations) provisions of the court's Judgment and Decree granting injunctive relief, have been accomplished. The court understands that pursuant to paragraph V.C.(11), the revised water service regulations will be implemented within 30 days from their approval. (KAS) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/04/2017

1093

ORDER approving Roger Carter as court−appointed monitor, having the authorities and responsibilities set forth in paragraphs (31) through (41) of Section V.C. of the Judgment and Decree. The monitor is required to provide the parties with a written report every 90 days for the first two years following his appointment. The court now requests that the monitor provide the court with a copy of his first 90−dayreport. That report may be filed under seal at the request of a party. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 08/03/2017. (KAS) (Entered: 08/04/2017)

08/14/2017 1094 MINUTE ORDER from Chambers − The court is in receipt of the United States' 1086 notice of the status of the parties' review of the defendants' building department policies and procedures. The parties will please advise the court if there are unresolved issues and, if so, present them to the court. (LAD) (Entered: 08/14/2017)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 82 of 89

08/14/2017

1095

*REPLY to Defendants' Joint Response to the United States' Memorandum in Support of its Bill of Costs and Joint Objection to Bill of Costs by United States of America re: 1082 Bill of Costs, 1088 Bill of Costs − Obj/Ans/Resp, 1091 Order on Motion for Leave to File . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Towt, Katharine) *Modified to correct event type on 8/15/2017 (KAS). (Entered: 08/14/2017)

08/16/2017 1096 NOTICE re: Second Notice of Status of Defendants Proposed Building Department Policies by United States of America re: 1094 Order . (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 08/16/2017)

08/17/2017

1097

MINUTE ORDER from Chambers: The court is in receipt of the United States' notice 1096 that on August 16, 2017, the defendants' building department policies and procedures were approved. The court understands that the revised building department policies and procedures will be implemented and made available where municipal business is conducted within 30days from August 16, 2017. See Judgment and Decree, Section V.C.(5) 1053 . (LAD) (Entered: 08/17/2017)

08/18/2017 1098 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated for proceedings held on 11/30/2012, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s) re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/18/2017 1099 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated for proceedings held on 06/05/2013, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s) re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/18/2017 1100 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated for proceedings held on 02/28/2014, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s) re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/18/2017 1101 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated for proceedings held on 06/09/2015, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s) re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/18/2017 1102 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated for proceedings held on 11/04/2015, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s) re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/18/2017 1103 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated for proceedings held on 11/19/2015, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s) re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/18/2017 1104 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated for proceedings held on 2/12/2016, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s) re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/18/2017

1105

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST *DESIGNATION OF APPEAL RECORD ONLY − ALREADY ON FILE AT DOC. 815 by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated for proceedings held on 12/29/2015, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s) re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Hamilton, R) *Modified to reference appeal designation on 8/21/2017 (RAP). (Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/18/2017

1106

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST *DESIGNATION OF APPEAL RECORD ONLY − TRANSCRIPTS ALREADY ON−FILE by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated for proceedings held on 1/19/2016−2/05/2016, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s) re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Hamilton, R) *Modified to reference appeal designation on 8/21/2017 (RAP). (Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/18/2017

1107

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST *DESIGNATION OF APPEAL RECORD ONLY − TRANSCRIPTS ALREADY ON−FILE by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated for proceedings held on 10/24/2016−10/27/2016, Judge H Russel Holland hearing judge(s) re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Hamilton, R) *Modified to reference appeal designation on 8/21/2017 (RAP). (Entered: 08/18/2017)

08/21/2017 1108 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: AO435 1102 Transcript Request − Appeal filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. Item 17 − TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED: There is no recording/transcript available for the 11/04/2015 Telephonic Conference. FOLLOW−UP ACTION REQUIRED: None.

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 83 of 89

This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (RAP) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/21/2017

1109

NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: AO435 1104 Transcript Request − Appeal filed by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. Item 17 − TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED: No court proceedings were transcribed or recorded for the requested date of 02/12/2016 In−Chambers Conference. FOLLOW−UP ACTION REQUIRED: None. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (RAP) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/21/2017 1110 *NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal re: Asha Sebastian, from Electronic Service List by Defendant Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) *Modified to reflect correct event on 8/22/2017 (SLQ). (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/22/2017 1111 Taxation Judgment in amount of $107,607.74 against defendant. Signed by Chief Deputy Clerk Michael O'Brien on 8/22/2017. (CSM) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/25/2017 1112 NOTICE re: Third Joint Report Regarding Subdivision Issues by United States of America re: 1069 Order, Set Deadlines . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/25/2017

1113

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − On June 28, 2017, the court entered its order regarding subdivision issues 1069 . That order required certain changes be made to the Short Creek Subdivision plat, and that the necessary parties sign off on the final plat for delivery to the UEP Trust. The court requested that the parties confer and report to the court in the event that a recordable Short Creek Subdivision plat had not been delivered to the UEP Trust for recording by July 28, 2017. The court assumes that the Short Creek Subdivision plat has been recorded. However, if that is not the case, counsel will please confer and report the status of this matter to the court on or before September 7, 2017. (SLQ) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/25/2017

1114

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of MOTION HEARING proceedings for date of 11/19/2015 before Judge H. Russell Holland re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Transcriber: Elaine Cropper). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/15/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/25/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/24/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

08/28/2017

1115

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of TELEPHONIC MOTIONS HEARING proceedings for date of 06/09/2015 before Senior Judge H. Russell Holland re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/18/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/28/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/27/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

09/07/2017

1116

ORDER − Case Status − On or before September 20, 2017, the parties shall report any remaining issues to the court. If there are no remaining issues, the parties will please inform the court that a recordable subdivision plat and utility map have been delivered to the UEP Trust for recording. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 9/7/17. (SLQ) (Entered: 09/07/2017)

09/08/2017

1117

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of TELEPHONIC MOTIONS HEARING proceedings for date of 11/30/2012 before Judge H. Russell Holland re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Transcriber: Jennifer A. Pancratz). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/29/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/10/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/7/2017. (RAP) (Entered:

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 84 of 89

09/15/2017)

09/15/2017

1121

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of TELEPHONIC MOTION HEARING proceedings for date of 06/05/2013 before Judge H. Russell Holland re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Transcriber: Candy L. Potter). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/6/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/16/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/14/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

09/18/2017 1118 STIPULATION to Extend Deadline to Complete Constitutional Training by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Hamilton, R) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

09/19/2017

1122

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE proceedings for date of 02/28/2014 before Magistrate Judge H. Russell Holland re: 1083 Notice of Appeal. (Transcriber: Elizabeth A. Lemke). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/10/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/18/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

09/20/2017 1119 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − The parties' Stipulated Motion to Extend Deadline to Complete Constitutional Training 1118 filed September 18, 2017, is granted. The deadline to complete constitutional training is extended to September 25, 2017. (SLQ) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

09/20/2017 1120 MOTION for Extension of Time to Provide Update on Subdivision Issues by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

09/21/2017 1123 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − Defendants' unopposed motion to extend deadline to provide update on subdivision issues 1120 , filed September 20, 2017, is granted, and the deadline is extended to and including September 22, 2017. (SLQ) (Entered: 09/21/2017)

09/22/2017 1124 STATUS REPORT Fourth Joint Report Regarding Subdivision Issues by Colorado City, Town of. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/26/2017

1125

ORDER − The court is in receipt of the parties' fourth joint report regarding subdivision issues 1124 . The parties report that there are no remaining subdivision issues, and that some final administrative matters will be concluded on or about September 25, 2017. The court thanks counsel and all concerned for their efforts in resolving this matter. The parties will please advise the court when the recordable subdivision plat and utility map have been delivered to the UEP Trust for recording. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 9/26/17. (SLQ) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

09/27/2017 1126 NOTICE re: Fifth Joint Report Regarding Subdivision by United States of America re: 1125 Order . (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

09/27/2017 1127 NOTICE re: Training by Colorado City, Town of re: 1119 Order on Stipulation, 1089 Order on Stipulation, Set Deadlines . (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

10/05/2017 1128 MOTION for Clarification Regarding the Culinary Water Impact Fee Report by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Att. A, # 2 Att. B, # 3 Att. C, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Savner, Emily) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/06/2017 1129 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − Plaintiff requests clarification 1128 regarding the Culinary Water Impact Report. Defendants will please respond on or before October 20, 2017. Plaintiff may reply on or before October 27, 2017. (SLQ) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 85 of 89

10/18/2017 1130 NOTICE re: Monitor's Position Regarding Updated Impact Fee Report by United States of America re: 1128 MOTION for Clarification Regarding the Culinary Water Impact Fee Report . (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Savner, Emily) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/20/2017 1131 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time of Briefing Schedule Deadlines by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/20/2017 1132 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS approving 1131 Defendants' Joint Request to Modify Briefing Schedule on Water Impact Fee Analysis. Accordingly, defendants' response is now due October 23, 2017, and the United States' reply is now due October 30, 2017.(KAS) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/23/2017 1133 RESPONSE to Motion re: 1128 MOTION for Clarification Regarding the Culinary Water Impact Fee Report filed by Colorado City, Town of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2017)

10/30/2017 1134 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1128 MOTION for Clarification Regarding the Culinary Water Impact Fee Report filed by United States of America. (Savner, Emily) (Entered: 10/30/2017)

11/01/2017 1147 MONITOR'S REPORT − November 2017 by Roger Carter. (Report filed pursuant to Order 1146 ) (MAP) (Entered: 01/25/2018)

11/03/2017 1135 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 1128 Motion for Clarification re: Water Impact Fee. The appointment of Alpha Engineering as the water engineer and its proposed scope of work remain unchanged. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 11/2/2017. (ATD) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/09/2017 1136 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: F. Nicole Porter appearing for United States of America. Notice of Association of Counsel. (Porter, F) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017 1137 STIPULATION re: 1053 Judgment, Permanent Injunction by Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Hamilton, R) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/13/2017 1138 MINUTE ORDER FROM CHAMBERS: The Parties Stipulated Motion to Extend Deadline to Provide Updated and Revised CCMO Policy Manual (Doc. 1137 ) is approved, to and including 11/30/2017. (DXD) (Entered: 11/13/2017)

12/01/2017

1139

Case Status ORDER: The Monitor's first quarterly report shall be held by the clerk in his "paper" file. On or before January 15, 2018, either party may request that the report be entered on the docket under seal. The Defendant Cities' Police Consultant will please proved the court with a status report with respect to compliance with paragraph V.B(3) of the court's Order on or before January 15, 2018. See document for further details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 11/30/2017. (REK) (Entered: 12/01/2017)

12/01/2017 1140 Joint MOTION to Add Court−Appointed Monitor to ECF Distribution List by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Savner, Emily) (Entered: 12/01/2017)

12/05/2017 1141 NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal of Christy E. Lopez, Eric W. Treene, Lori K. Wagner, Sean R. Keveney, Jessica Clarke, Anika Gzifa, and Sharon I. Brett filed by Matthew J Donnelly. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/08/2017

1142

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS granting 1140 Motion to Add Court−appointed Monitor to the ECF Distribution List. The Clerk is hereby authorized to permit the court−appointed monitor, Roger Carter, to receive all ECF notifications in this matter. Upon receipt of a copy of this order, the Monitor is directed to contact Sandra Fredlund of the United States District Court, to confirm contact information for inclusion on the docket sheet for this case. (DXD) (Entered: 12/08/2017)

01/05/2018 1143 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/FIRM NAME by Jeffrey Charles Matura. (Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

01/11/2018 1144 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen M Ryals on behalf of United States of America. (Ryals, Stephen) (Entered: 01/11/2018)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 86 of 89

01/23/2018 1145 NOTICE of Appearance by Noah David Sacks on behalf of United States of America. (Sacks, Noah) (Entered: 01/23/2018)

01/25/2018

1146

ORDER FROM THE CHAMBERS OF JUDGE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND. No party has requested that the Monitor's first report of November 1, 2017, be sealed. Therefore, with this minute order, the Clerk shall docket and file Monitor Roger Carter's November 1, 2017, report, which is currently held in the Clerk's paper file. (cc: R Carter) (MAP) (Entered: 01/25/2018)

01/25/2018

1148

MINUTE ORDER from Chambers − Donald James Keith, the appointed police consultant, has completed and is prepared to submit his report. Counsel will be afforded an opportunity to review and recommend whether there is any necessity for the consultant's report to be sealed. Accordingly, the police consultant will please deliver his report (by email or USPS1) directly to Sandra Fredlund of the United States District Court in Phoenix Upon receipt, the clerk will please retain the report in his "paper" file and will email a copy of the report directly to chambers and to counsel. On or before February 14,2018, counsel will please file a notice indicating whether there is any necessity for there port to be filed under seal. The court will then direct the clerk to file the report, either as a "public" entry or under seal. (LAD) cc: Donald James Keith (Entered: 01/25/2018)

02/07/2018

1149

ORDER − Case Status: The schedule proposed for the completion of revisions to a police policy manual is approved. In a further report, the Police Consultant will please update the court on the status of his training and that by the city attorneys. With respect to the Police Consultant's request (not to be involved in the incident reporting process), the court does not expect the Consultant to be involved in the administrative process of preparing the reports and submitting them to the Monitor. The court looks forward to receiving the Monitors next quarterly report, and requests that the Police Consultant provide the court with an updated report on or before April 1, 2018. cc: Donald James Keith. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 02/07/2018. (KAS) (Entered: 02/07/2018)

02/07/2018 1150 NOTICE re: Filing of Police Consultant's Report Under Seal by United States of America . (Porter, F) (Entered: 02/07/2018)

02/12/2018 1151 MONITOR'S REPORT − February 2018 by Roger Carter. (LAD) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

02/14/2018 1152 SUPPLEMENT/Clarification of Police Consultant CAD support re: 1151 Monitor's Report − February 2018 by Roger Carter. (LAD) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

03/30/2018 1153 MONITOR'S REPORT Dated January 5, 2018 by Jim Keith. (MAP) (Entered: 03/30/2018)

03/30/2018 1154 MONITOR'S REPORT Dated March 28, by Jim Keith. (MAP) (Entered: 03/30/2018)

04/03/2018

1155

ORDER − Report Processing: Having the Monitor and the Police Consultant provide the court with their reports directly has proven to be administratively cumbersome (re: 1139 Order). Future reports of the Monitor required by the judgment and any future report(s) requested of the Police Consultant shall first go to counsel and be processed by counsel and the court as set forth. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 4/3/2018. (cc: Roger Carter & Donald James Keith) (ATD) (Entered: 04/03/2018)

04/03/2018

1156

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS: The Police Consultant's March 28, 2018, report is approved (Doc. 1154 ). It appears that excellent progress is being made in reforming the CCMO. On or before May 1, 2018, and using the report processing procedure set forth in the order filed concurrent herewith, the Police Consultant will please provide counsel with compliance information with respect to paragraphs V.B(3)(e), (f), and (g), pages 29 and 30, of the 1053 judgment. At the same time, the Police Consultant will please update counsel on the matter of new hires for the CCMO. (cc: Roger Carter & Donald James Keith) (ATD) (Entered: 04/03/2018)

05/16/2018

1157

MINUTE ORDER from Chambers − Counsel for the parties are reminded of the revised reporting process put in place by the court's 1155 order of April 3, 2018. (LAD) cc: Roger Carter; 111 North 100 East; Washington City, UT 84780; Donald James Keith; 1926 South Summerfield Lane; Washington, Utah 84780 (Entered: 05/16/2018)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 87 of 89

05/24/2018 1158 NOTICE re: Joint Notice of Filing of Monitor's and Consultant's Reports by United States of America . (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B)(Porter, F) (Entered: 05/24/2018)

05/29/2018 1159 MINUTE ORDER FROM CHAMBERS : The Monitor and consultant will please provide the court with updated reports on or before August 1, 2018. (MSA) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

05/29/2018

1160

*ORDER FROM CHAMBERS: The court has received the report of the Court Monitor and of the Police Consultant ( Doc. 1158 ). The monitor and consultant will please provide the court with updated reports on or before August 1, 2018. (ATD) *Modified on 5/31/2018 to reflect PDF is a duplicate of Doc. 1159 ; docketed in error (ATD). (Entered: 05/29/2018)

06/07/2018

1161

ORDER of USCA dismissing in part appeal as to appellant City of Hildale only re: 17−16472, 1083 Notice of Appeal filed by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. This order served on the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court as to the appeal brought by appellant City of Hildale only. (EJA) (Entered: 06/07/2018)

08/10/2018 1162 NOTICE re: Joint Notice of Filing of Monitor's and Consultant's Reports by United States of America . (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B)(Porter, F) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/14/2018

1163

MINUTE ORDER from Chambers re: 1162 − The court thanks the court monitor and police consultant for their timely, detailed reports. The fact that the court monitor reports there are no outstanding Fair Housing injunction requirements is of course good news. Even better news is reflected by the court monitor's and police consultant's reports of staffing changes in the marshal's office and progress in relationships between the marshal's office and other law enforcement agencies. The court monitor and police consultant will please keep up their good work and report to the court again on or before November 1, 2018. (LAD) cc: Roger Carter and Donald James Keith (Entered: 08/14/2018)

10/03/2018 1164 NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal of F. Nicole Porter filed by F Nicole Porter. (Porter, F) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

11/01/2018 1165 NOTICE re: Filing of Monitor and Police Consultant's Reports by Colorado City, Town of re: 1155 Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

11/15/2018

1166

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS: The Department of Justice's policy approval process has been slower than expected. Counsel for plaintiff shall look into the matter and then consult with appropriate DOJ personnel for purposes of addressing this concern. The court looks forward to receiving the next reports of the Court Monitor and Police Consultant on or about February 1, 2019. (KAS) (Entered: 11/15/2018)

01/31/2019 1167 NOTICE re: Filing Police Consultant's Report by Colorado City, Town of re: 1155 Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/31/2019)

02/01/2019 1168 NOTICE re: Filing of Monitor's Report by Colorado City, Town of re: 1155 Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/01/2019)

02/06/2019

1169

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS: The Court is in receipt of 1168 Notice of Filing Monitor's Report and 1167 Notice of Filing Police Consultant's Report. The Court Monitor and Police Consultant will please provide the next reports on or about 5/1/2019. See document for further details. (RMV) cc: Roger Carter and Donald James Keith (Entered: 02/06/2019)

02/20/2019 1170 *MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Hildale, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order on Application for Substitution of Counsel)(Kesselring, Christian) *Modified on 2/21/2019 to remove ex parte designation(MSA). (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/27/2019 1171 ORDER granting 1170 Motion to Substitute Attorney for the City of Hildale. Finding good cause for the application, the court orders that the substitution is hereby allowed, and directs that all appropriate changes shall be made to the record to reflect attorney Kesselring's representation of Hildale. (MSA) (Entered: 02/27/2019)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 88 of 89

03/07/2019

1172

ORDER − The Court Monitor's supplemental report comports with the court's February 6,2019, order. The court endorses the Court Monitor's proposal to continue working closely with city officials to ensure training requirements are improved by May 1, 2019, when a further report is due to be submitted. See document for complete details. (MSA) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

05/01/2019 1173 NOTICE re: Filing of Monitor and Police Consultant's Reports by Colorado City, Town of . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

05/08/2019

1174

ORDER − The court is in receipt of counsel's notice1 of the filing of the Court Monitor's and Police Consultant's reports. The April 30, 2019, report of Police Consultant Keith is approved. The May 1,2019, report of Court Monitor Carter is approved. The court looks forward to receiving the next reports of the Court Monitor and Police Consultant on or about August 1, 2019. See document for complete details. (MSA) (Entered: 05/08/2019)

06/25/2019 1175 NOTICE TO COUNSEL FROM JUDGE HOLLAND − See document for complete details. (MSA) (Entered: 06/25/2019)

08/07/2019 1176 NOTICE re: Notice of Filing of Monitor and Police Consultant's Reports by Colorado City, Town of . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/12/2019

1177

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − The court is in receipt of the 1176 notice by counsel for the Town of Colorado City, covering the quarterly reports of Court Monitor Roger Carter and Police Consultant Jim Keith. The July 31, 2019, report of Police Consultant Keith is approved. The August 1, 2019, report of Court Monitor Carter is approved. The court looks forward to receiving further reports from the Court Monitor and Police Consultant on or about November 1, 2019. At that point, and depending upon good progress being made by the towns of Colorado City and Hildale, the court will take recommendations from the parties regarding the frequency with which future reports will be required. See document for complete details. (RMV) (Entered: 08/12/2019)

09/05/2019 1179 MOTION Regarding Mandatory Policies and Procedures Training (Stipulated) by Hildale, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order on Stipulated Motion Regarding Mandatory Policies and Procedures Training)(Kesselring, Christian) (Entered: 09/05/2019)

09/09/2019

1180

ORDER approving 1179 Stipulated Motion Regarding Mandatory Policies and Procedures Training. Except as specifically provided in this Order, all other terms of the Judgment and Decree, as modified by the August 2017 1089 Order, with respect to mandatory education and training will apply. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 9/6/2019. (RMV) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

10/18/2019 1181 MANDATE of USCA affirming re: 17−16472, 1083 Notice of Appeal filed by Colorado City, Town of, Hildale, City of, Twin City Water Authority Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Opinion)(EJA) (Entered: 10/18/2019)

11/04/2019 1182 NOTICE re: of Filing of Court Monitor and Police Consultant Reports by Colorado City, Town of Colorado City. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Police Consultant Report, # 2 Exhibit Court Monitor Report)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/04/2019)

11/07/2019 1183 ORDER − The court is in receipt of the notice by counsel for the Town of Colorado City, covering the quarterly reports of Court Monitor Roger Carter and Police Consultant Jim Keith. See document for complete details. (MSA) (Entered: 11/07/2019)

12/13/2019 1184 NOTICE re: Concurrence With Monitor's Request to Amend Reporting Intervals to Six Months by United States of America . (Sacks, Noah) (Entered: 12/13/2019)

12/23/2019

1185

ORDER − Paragraph 39 of the court's 1053 Judgment and Decree is hereby revised to require that the Monitor provide the parties with a written report every six months. The Monitor's first semi−annual report to the parties shall be made on or about May 1, 2020. Counsel shall continue to provide the court with the foregoing semi−annual reports. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 12/23/2019. (RMV) (Entered: 12/23/2019)

Case: 3:12-cv-8123 As of: 06/18/2020 08:26 PM MST 89 of 89
05/05/2020 1186 NOTICE re: of Filing of Court Monitor and Police Consultant Reports by Colorado City, Town of re: 1185 Order, Set Deadlines . (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Monitor Report 5.1.20, # 2 Supplement Consultant Report 5.1.20)(Matura, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
05/14/2020 1187 ORDER Re Court Monitor and Consultant Reporting. See Order for Details. Signed by Judge H Russel Holland on 5/13/20. (MAP) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

 
 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

TOWN OF COLORADO CITY, ARIZONA; )

CITY OF HILDALE, UTAH; TWIN CITY

)

POWER; and TWIN CITY WATER

)

AUTHORITY, INC.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________)

No. 3:12-cv-8123-HRH (Prescott Division)

O R D E R Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence Plaintiff moves for sanctions against the Town of Colorado City for spoliation of evidence.1 This motion is opposed.2 Oral argument was requested but is not deemed necessary.
1Docket No. 353. 2Docket No. 361.
-1-

Background On June 21, 2012, plaintiff, the United States of America, commenced this action against defendants The Town of Colorado City, Arizona; City of Hildale, Utah; Twin City Power; and Twin City Water Authority, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that “[d]efendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of illegal discrimination against individuals who are not members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“FLDS”).”3 Plaintiff alleges that defendants “have acted in concert with FLDS leadership to deny nonFLDS individuals housing, police protection, and access to public space and services.”4 Plaintiff further alleges that the municipalities’ joint police department, the Colorado City Marshal’s Office (CCMO), “has inappropriately used its state-granted enforcement authority to enforce the edicts of the FLDS, to the detriment of non-FLDS members.”5 Plaintiff contends that during the course of discovery in this case it has learned of three categories of evidence that have been destroyed or altered. First, plaintiff contends that Colorado City has admitted that it deleted the recordings of two dispatch calls from February 21, 2013. On that evening, CCMO officers responded to an alleged break-in at Eco Alliance, a local business, and an alleged home invasion at 340 East Johnson Avenue in Colorado City.
3Complaint at 2, ¶ 4, Docket No. 1. 4Id. (footnote omitted). 5Id. at 3, ¶ 4.
-2-

Two of the persons involved in these incidents were Sam Steed and Willie Jessop, both of whom, according to plaintiff, are non-FLDS members. Allegedly, Steed and Jessop took items from Eco Alliance’s safe and were attempting to retrieve items from a safe in the residence at 340 East Johnson Avenue where Steed’s sister lived. At some point in the evening, officers from Mohave County were also called to the scene at East Johnson Avenue. Plaintiff contends that the events of February 21, 2013 indicate that the CCMO was operating to protect the interests of the FLDS church. In its First Request for Production, which was served on Colorado City in April 2013, plaintiff requested that Colorado City produce “[a]ll police reports, citations, incident reports, dispatch records (including computer-aided dispatch calls), records of calls and conversations, field contact reports/cards, and any related audio or video recordings between January 1, 2010, and the present.”6 In addition, on October 30, 2013, plaintiff’s counsel wrote to Colorado City’s counsel to “confirm that your litigation holds are preserving all 911 calls, dispatch calls, and the like.... I’m envisioning that we may do a RFP for some of these soon, including some days in February 2013.”7 Colorado City’s counsel responded that “Colorado City is preserving these items.”8 A CCMO “call log
6Request for Production No. 32, Exhibit 1 at 11-12, United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353.
7Email from Matt Donnelly to Jeff Matura and Blake Hamilton, Exhibit 10, United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353.
8Email from Jeff Matura to Matt Donnelly, Exhibit 10, United States’ Motion for (continued...)
-3-

report” for the night in question shows that five calls were received in connection with the
events at Eco Alliance and 340 East Johnson Avenue, two calls to dispatch and three 911 calls.9 Colorado City has produced recordings of the 911 calls but has not produced
recordings of the two dispatch calls. After receiving the 911 calls but not the dispatch calls,
plaintiff served Colorado City with an interrogatory which asked Colorado City to
[e]xplain in detail all the reasons why Colorado City has not produced to the United States copies of recordings of all calls made to and from dispatch between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. on February 21, 2013, including (1) a call made to dispatch at approximately 3:14 a.m. by Morley Barlow, and (2) a call from dispatch to Josephine Steed at approximately 4:05 a.m.[10]
Colorado City responded that “[t]he system automatically recorded over these calls after 24 hours.”11
The second category of evidence that is the subject of the instant motion is police
reports. Plaintiff contends that it has learned that Colorado City has altered police reports
prior to producing these reports to plaintiff. This contention is based on the April 2014
8(...continued) Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353.
9Exhibit 9, United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353.
10Interrogatory No. 23, Exhibit 2 at 3, United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353.
11Id. at 4. -4-

deposition testimony of Helaman Barlow, the chief of CCMO. Helaman Barlow was asked
if “David Darger [the city manager] or anybody else in city government altered any ... police reports, after the United States made a discovery request in this case?”12 Helaman Barlow responded “yes” and stated that he did not know how many reports had been “altered.”13
He then explained that by “altered” he meant
there were times where there was an incomplete report or a report with the wrong call for service on it. Like for ... instance, it was called a “burglary,” when it ... was an alarm that went off. And those reports — then both myself and David Darger reviewed, and I ... or Dave would take them back to the officer and say, “Hey, we need to give this to the Department of Justice, I want you to either finish it or correct it.”[14]
Helaman Barlow was also asked if “David Darger, at any point while you were working on
producing police reports to the Department of Justice, suggest[ed] having a report altered because the report would make the marshal’s office look bad?”15 Helaman Barlow answered
that “I think both Dave and I would ... agree on some of the reports that just didn’t ... match the ... call type and that we felt like, ‘Well, that makes us look bad.’”16 Helaman Barlow also
12Deposition of Helaman Barlow at 119, lns. 7-10, Exhibit 8, United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353.
13Id. at lns. 11-15. 14Id. at 119, ln. 21 - 120, ln. 6. 15Id. at 120, lns. 18-22. 16Id. at 120, ln. 24 - 121, ln. 3.
-5-

testified that there were reports where he asked the officer to go back and put in a narrative.17 Helaman Barlow further testified that some of the reports that he and David Darger gave back to officers to “alter” had already been finalized.18 At his April 2014 deposition, Helaman Barlow also produced his police report for a December 18, 2013 incident and a copy of the report with changes made by David Darger.19
The third category of evidence is minutes from CCMO officer meetings. Plaintiff contends that Colorado City has failed to produce minutes from certain CCMO officer meetings. Colorado City has produced notes of officer meetings for December 23, 2005 to September 22, 2007; September 15, 2008 to December 29, 2008; January 6, 2009 to December 18, 2009; January 4, 2010 to December 27, 2010; and January 3, 2013 to March 25, 2013. But, Colorado City has not produced any officer meeting notes for the time period of June 17, 2006 to September 4, 2006; September 23, 2007 to September 14, 2008; and November 1, 2011 to February 26, 2012.20 Colorado City has advised plaintiff that “there were no meetings
17Id. at 121, lns. 20-23. 18Id. at 120, lns. 7-13. 19Exhibits 1-2, Reply in Support of United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 370. 20Plaintiff seems unconcerned that Colorado City has not produced officer meeting notes for the first ten months of 2011 and the last ten months of 2012.
-6-

during the timeframes that there are no minutes” and that “actual minutes themselves are only saved for two years.”21
Finally, plaintiff contends that it is possible that Colorado City destroyed some evidence on April 22, 2014. Plaintiff completed its second deposition of Helaman Barlow on that day, during which Barlow made numerous complaints about David Darger. On the afternoon of April 22, 2014, Willie Jessop avers that he “saw a small group of what appeared to be teen-aged boys taking white bankers boxes from the door of the Colorado City dispatch center and load[ing] them in [a] white SUV. The boys appeared to be working under the direction of town manager David Darger.”22 Plaintiff states that it is concerned that evidence may have been being removed or destroyed, given the timing of the event and David Darger’s involvement.
Plaintiff now moves for sanctions as a remedy for Colorado City’s spoliation of evidence.
Discussion “‘The failure to preserve electronic or other records, once the duty to do so has been triggered, raises the issue of spoliation of evidence and its consequences.’” Surowiec v.
21Email from Jeffrey Matura to Sean Keveney, Exhibit 17 at 1, United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353.
22Declaration of Willie R. Jessop at 1, ¶ 5, Exhibit 23, United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353.
-7-

Capital Title Agency, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 997, 1005 (D. Ariz. 2011) (quoting Thompson v. U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., 219 F.R.D. 93, 100 (D. Md. 2003)). “Spoliation is the destruction or material alteration of evidence, or the failure to otherwise preserve evidence, for another’s use in litigation.” Id.
Colorado City disputes that any police reports were “altered.” First of all, Colorado City suggests that Helaman Barlow, on whose testimony plaintiff is relying, has no credibility. Colorado City points out that Helaman Barlow has admitted that he lied in his first deposition in this case, that he lied to Utah POST during an investigation, and that he lied on the stand in another federal case.23 Thus, Colorado City contends that there is no reason to believe that Helaman Barlow is now telling the truth. But, even if he is, Colorado City argues that his testimony does not establish that police reports were “altered.” Rather, Colorado City contends that Helaman Barlow testified that his and David Darger’s intent was to make sure accurate and complete reports were produced and thus they requested that officers complete and/or “correct” their reports. As for the report by Helaman Barlow that David Darger edited, Helaman Barlow testified that David Darger never told him “directly” to change the report, but rather Darger “red lined it and said ... he would like me to do it.”24
23Helaman Barlow Deposition at 178, ln. 17- 180, ln. 9, Exhibit 7, Colorado City’s Response to the United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 361.
24Id. at 211, lns. 18-22. -8-

Helaman Barlow also testified that David Darger wanted to make sure the report was factually accurate based on a video of the incident in question.25 Colorado City contends that courts have declined to find spoliation where records were supplemented, but not destroyed, and the alterations were not significant. See, e.g., In re Tenet Healthcare Corp. Securities Litig., Case No. CV 02-8462-RSWL (RZx), 2007 WL 5673884, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (“KPMG’s conduct of supplementing its workpapers did not amount to spoliation because there was no destruction of documents, and there is no showing that the additions to the workpapers were sufficiently significant alterations”). Colorado City insists that Helaman Barlow’s testimony shows that any alterations were not significant but rather were merely to make the reports more accurate and complete.
The two copies of Helaman Barlow’s police report, which were produced at his April 2014 deposition, are evidence that material alterations were made to police reports. The changes David Darger made to Helaman Barlow’s report were significant and thus it is reasonable to assume that the “alterations” made to other police reports were likewise material. This is not a situation in which documents were “supplemented” after they had been originally produced. Rather, the police reports were altered prior to being produced. Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence that police reports were altered after plaintiff had requested them and prior to them being produced.
25Id. at 214, lns. 2-23. -9-

Colorado City also argues that it has not destroyed any officer meeting notes. It contends that it has searched its records for officer meeting notes and produced all it can find. Colorado City contends that the only evidence the United States has to suggest that minutes were destroyed is Helaman Barlow’s deposition testimony that there were officer meetings every month, but Colorado City again suggests that Barlow’s credibility is questionable.
If Helaman Barlow did in fact testify that there were officer meetings every month and if his testimony can be believed, then it is reasonable to infer that Colorado City has destroyed some officer meeting minutes. In particular, it seems implausible that there were no officer meetings from November 2011 through February 2012, given that plaintiff gave Colorado City notice of this lawsuit on November 22, 2011.
Colorado City also contends that no evidence was being destroyed on April 22, 2014. To support this contention, Colorado City offers the affidavit of Lyman Barlow, who avers that he is a “CPR/First Aid Instructor for the Colorado City Fire Department” and that on April 22, 2014, he was conducting a CPR/First Aid class in Colorado City’s council meeting room.26 Lyman Barlow further avers that after the training was complete,
three people helped me remove several boxes of CPR/First Aid training materials and supplies from the meeting room. The boxes were transported in a GMC Yukon back to Fire Station #3.
26Declaration of Lyman Barlow at ¶ 3, Exhibit 8, Colorado City’s Response to the United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 361.
-10-

The boxes contained CPR and First Aid training materials belonging to the Colorado City Fire Department, and were not the property of the Town of Colorado City.[27]
Lyman Barlow further avers that “David Darger was not involved in any part of the training
class. He also was not involved at all in moving or placing the boxes of training material into the vehicle.”28 Lyman Barlow’s declaration is sufficient to establish that no evidence
connected to this case was being destroyed on April 22, 2014.
However, Colorado City had admitted that the two dispatch calls were not preserved.
The evidence also suggests that some police reports were materially altered prior to being
produced. And, the possibility may exist that Colorado City destroyed some officer meeting
minutes after it had notice of this lawsuit. Thus, the court must consider whether plaintiff
is entitled to sanctions for any of this conduct.
“A party seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence must prove the following elements: (1) the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it when it was destroyed or altered; (2) the destruction or loss was accompanied by a culpable state of mind; and (3) the evidence that was destroyed or altered was relevant to the claims or defenses of the party that sought the discovery of the spoliated evidence [.]”
Surowiec, 790 F. Supp. 2d at 1005 (quoting Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d
494, 509 (D. Md. 2009)).
27Id. at ¶ 4. 28Id. at ¶ 5.
-11-

Duty to preserve Colorado City had a duty to preserve evidence relevant to this case since November 22, 2011, the date on which plaintiff notified Colorado City that it intended to file this lawsuit.29 See Krause v. Nevada Mut. Ins. Co., Case No. 2:12–cv–00342–JCM–CWH, 2014 WL 496936, at *7 (D. Nev. Feb. 6, 2014) (“the duty to preserve begins when a party reasonably should have known that the evidence is relevant to anticipated litigation”). Colorado City should have known that the February 21, 2013 dispatch calls were relevant. In the November 22, 2011 notice letter, plaintiff alleged that the CCMO “has engaged in and continues to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct against non-FLDS members....”30 This was sufficient to put Colorado City on notice that events involving interaction between CCMO officers and non-FLDS members were relevant. But even if plaintiff’s November 22, 2011 letter did not put Colorado City on notice, plaintiff’s response to a motion to dismiss,31 which was filed prior to February 21, 2013, should have. In that response, plaintiff alleged that the CCMO “ (3) serves as the enforcement arm of the Church; (4) enforces FLDS edicts; (5) fails to cooperate with law enforcement efforts by other offices investigating crimes by
29See Letter from Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, to Mayor George M. Barlow, Town of Colorado City at 2, Exhibit 24, United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353.
30Id. 31Docket No. 27.
-12-

FLDS members; (6) arrests non-FLDS individuals without probable cause; [and] (7) deprives individuals of property without due process[.]”32 These allegations were sufficient to put Colorado City on notice that the events that occurred on February 21, 2013 would be relevant to this case, if for no other reason than that Mohave County officers were involved in the incident at East Johnson Avenue and there was an attempt to arrest a non-FLDS member. Plaintiff had no duty to amend its complaint to bring the February 21, 2013 incident within the scope of its “pattern and practice” allegations and it did not have to make any specific request for production before Colorado City’s duty to preserve this evidence was triggered. A duty to preserve evidence arises not out of the receipt of a discovery request but arises once a party “should reasonably know that evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation.” Surowiec, 790 F. Supp. 2d at 1005 (citation omitted).
Colorado City also had a duty to preserve officer meeting notes after it received plaintiff’s notice letter. Thus, it had a duty to preserve any notes from November 22, 2011 to February 26, 2012, if notes for that time period ever existed, but it did not have a duty to preserve the 2006 notes.
Culpable state of mind Plaintiff argues that Colorado City has destroyed or altered evidence with a culpable state of mind. As evidence of intent, plaintiff first points to Helaman Barlow’s testimony that
32Id. at 2. -13-

some of the alterations of the police reports were done because the reports made Colorado City look bad. Plaintiff also points out that Colorado City acknowledged that it had a duty to preserve the dispatch calls and claimed that it was preserving them, but then later informed plaintiff that the calls had been deleted. Plaintiff also contends that the circumstances surrounding the missing officer meeting notes are sufficient for the court to infer culpable intent. Plaintiff contends that the timing of the gaps in minutes is notable because the first gap was in and around the time Warren Jeffs was arrested and the third gap was right after plaintiff gave notice of the instant lawsuit. Moreover, plaintiff contends that Helaman Barlow has testified that there was never a time when more than a month went by without an officer meeting.33
Most of the foregoing evidence is not sufficient to establish that Colorado City acted with a culpable state of mind. Helaman Barlow’s comment about the police reports looking bad was based on them not being complete, not that they contained information that was adverse to Colorado City. The missing 2006 notes are not evidence of a culpable state of mind, even though it seems odd that Colorado City produced some notes for 2006, but not all of the 2006 notes. But, Colorado City contends that it found some of the officer meeting notes by searching officers’ emails so it is possible that an officer had a set of notes attached to an email, even though those notes had officially been purged. But, the fact that there are
33Plaintiff cited to Helaman Barlow’s April 2014 deposition but the pages to which it cited are not attached as an exhibit to the instant motion.
-14-

no officer meeting notes from November 1, 2011 to February 26, 2012, which is in and around the time plaintiff gave notice of this lawsuit, may create an inference of a culpable state of mind, if Helaman Barlow did in fact testify that officer meetings were held every month. In addition, the fact that the recordings of the two dispatch calls were recorded over may create an inference that Colorado City acted with a culpable state of mind.
Plaintiff also argues that Colorado City’s refusal to issue a written litigation hold is evidence of a culpable state of mind. See Surowiec, 790 F. Supp. 2d at 1007 (quoting Pension Committee of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Sec., 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)) (“‘At least one court has concluded that, once the duty to preserve is triggered, the failure to issue a written litigation hold constitutes gross negligence per se and prejudice may be presumed ‘because that failure is likely to result in the destruction of relevant information.’”). In its November 22, 2011 notice letter, plaintiff advised Colorado City that it had an obligation to preserve any and all documents relating to plaintiff’s allegations of religious discrimination between January 1985 and the present.34 Plaintiff stated that “written confirmation of your agreement to maintain intact all such records is a precondition to any pre-suit negotiations.”35 Plaintiff provided a proposed certification
34Notice Letter at 2, Exhibit 24, United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353.
35Id. -15-

“reflecting that agreement....”36 On December 16, 2011, defense counsel advised plaintiff’s counsel that they had “discussed with our clients the necessity of preserving all documents and electronic data” but that “we are not willing to sign your proposed certification.”37 On December 21, 2011, defense counsel advised that their clients could not provide plaintiff with written assurances about their obligation to preserve documents “unless their respective governing bodies approve such action.”38 Plaintiff also emphasizes that Helaman Barlow testified at his first deposition that prior to the lawsuit actually being filed, he was not told that he had a duty to preserve CCMO records,39 which plaintiff suggests creates an inference that Colorado City had taken no steps to preserve evidence once it was aware of this lawsuit.
Colorado City’s failure to sign plaintiff’s incredibly broad certification is not evidence of a culpable state of mind, particularly given the evidence that suggests that Colorado City imposed its own internal litigation hold. Vance Barlow, the town clerk of Colorado City, was asked “[s]ince the United States sent its notice letter of this case to Colorado City, have
36Id. at 3. 37Letter from R. Blake Hamilton, Stirba & Assocs., to Lori K. Wagner, U.S. Dept. of Justice, at 1, Exhibit 25, United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353. 38Letter from defense counsel to Sean R. Keveney, Trial Attorney, U.S. Dept. of Justice at 1, Exhibit 26, United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353. 39Helaman Barlow Deposition at 155, ln. 19 - 157, ln. 7, Exhibit 27, United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 353.
-16-

you directed the IT department to take steps to preserve e-mails?”40 Vance Barlow responded that he directed them to do “[t]he same as the records, nothing gets destroyed or retentioned out, et cetera, without personal clearance from me, and I won’t do it without a thorough review from the Town Manager and legal council.”41 In addition, David Darger, the town manager, testified that “if there’s any records that fall within the ... purview of the litigation, then they wouldn’t have been [purged]. If there’s something that’s totally unrelated, then it could have been.”42 David Darger also testified that he discussed with the town clerk and the marshal the need to preserve documents.43
In sum, plaintiff has offered some slight evidence that Colorado City acted with a culpable state of mind. But, most of the evidence that plaintiff has cited to does not support a conclusion that Colorado City intentionally destroyed evidence.
Relevance of evidence Plaintiff has the burden “‘to establish a reasonable possibility, based on concrete evidence rather than a fertile imagination, that access to the lost material would have
40Vance Barlow Deposition at 127, lns. 15-17, Exhibit 2, Colorado City’s Response to the United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 361.
41Id. at lns. 20-23. 42Deposition of David Darger at 130, lns. 15-19, Exhibit 3, Colorado City’s Response to the United States’ Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Docket No. 361. 43Id. at 131, lns. 8-14.
-17-

produced evidence favorable to [its] cause.’” Sampson v. City of Cambridge, Md., 251 F.R.D. 172, 180 (D. Md. 2008) (quoting Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd., 167 F.R.D. 90 (D. Colo. 1996)). Although much of the instant motion seems to be based on plaintiff’s suspicions rather than concrete evidence, the evidence in question probably has some relevance to this case.
Sanctions requested “Because spoliation is considered an abuse of the judicial process, courts may impose sanctions as part of their inherent power to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Surowiec, 790 F. Supp. 2d at 1008 (internal citations omitted). “‘Sanctions that a federal court may impose for spoliation include assessing attorney’s fees and costs, giving the jury an adverse inference instruction, precluding evidence, or imposing the harsh, case-dispositive sanctions of dismissal or judgment.’” Id. (quoting Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497, 533 (D. Md. 2010)). “While the court has discretion to impose spoliation sanctions, it must determine which sanction best (1) deters parties from future spoliation, (2) places the risk of an erroneous judgment on the spoliating party, and (3) restores the innocent party to their rightful litigation position.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “Ultimately, the choice of appropriate spoliation sanctions must be determined on a case-by-case basis, and should be commensurate to the spoliating party’s motive or degree of fault in destroying the evidence.”
-18-

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 888 F. Supp. 2d 976, 992-93 (N.D. Cal. 2012). To
justify an adverse jury instruction, the spoliating party’s degree of fault and the resulting
prejudice to the other party must be significant. Id. at 993.
Plaintiff requests that the following sanctions be imposed. First, plaintiff requests that
Colorado City be ordered “to provide an accounting for all documents or items removed
from Colorado City government property, including the Colorado City town hall, CCMO offices, or the dispatch center on April 22, 2014[.]”44 Second, plaintiff requests that Colorado
City be ordered to identify all police reports that were altered and to explain how they were
altered. Third, plaintiff requests that Colorado City be ordered to issue a written, litigation-
hold memorandum to all its agents and employees. And finally, plaintiff requests that the
following instruction be given at trial:
The Defendant, Colorado City, has intentionally altered or destroyed relevant evidence in this case, including (1) phone calls to dispatch; (2) notes of officer meetings; and (3) CCMO police reports. There is, therefore, evidence that was not available to be presented to you during this trial. You should infer that such evidence would have been unfavorable to Colorado City.[45]
Colorado City has already complied with plaintiff’s first request for sanctions by
providing an explanation for the boxes that were being removed on April 22, 2014. It being
44United States’ Motion for Sanctions for the Spoliation of Evidence at 17, Docket No. 353.
45Id. -19-

clear that some police reports have been “altered”, plaintiff is entitled to its second request, which is a list of all police reports that have been altered and how they have been altered, or copies of the unaltered reports. As for plaintiff’s third request, there is no point at this late stage in making Colorado City issue a written litigation hold. Finally, plaintiff is not entitled to an adverse jury instruction because any prejudice that plaintiff will suffer from not having the two dispatch calls is minimal as is any prejudice from the lack of officer meeting notes from November 1, 2011 to February 26, 2012, given that plaintiff has made no showing that there were in fact officer meetings during that time for which minutes or notes would have been prepared.
Conclusion Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence46 is granted as to plaintiffs’ first request, with which Colorado City has already complied, and as to plaintiffs’ second request but is denied as to plaintiff’s third and fourth requests. Colorado City shall provide plaintiff with the list of altered police reports and how they were altered, or copies of the unaltered reports, on or before August 18, 2014. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 28th day of July, 2014.
/s/ H. Russel Holland United States District Judge
46Docket No. 353. -20-

 
 Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against the Twin Cities of Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, and Local Utility Companies Alleging Religious Discrimina...

Search this site

Search

HOME ABOUT AGENCIES BUSINESS RESOURCES NEWS CAREERS CONTACT Home » Office of Public Affairs

JUSTICE NEWS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs

SHARE Thursday, June 21, 2012

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against the Twin Cities of Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, and Local Utility
Companies Alleging Religious Discrimination
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department filed a lawsuit today against the town of Colorado City, Ariz.; the city of Hildale, Utah; Twin City Water Authority; and Twin City Power alleging a pattern or practice of police misconduct and violations of federal civil rights laws.   The complaint alleges discrimination based on religion in violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the first lawsuit by the Justice Department to include claims under both the Fair Housing Act and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
The adjoining towns of Colorado City and Hildale are located on the border of Arizona and Utah and are populated primarily by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints (FLDS). The FLDS is not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleges that defendants discriminated against individuals who are not members of the FLDS by engaging in a pattern or practice of violating the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Fair Housing Act. The complaint contends that the cities, their joint police department and local utility providers under the cities’ control have allowed the FLDS Church to improperly influence the provision of policing services, utility services and access to housing and public facilities, and that this improper influence has led to discriminatory treatment against non-FLDS residents.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Colorado City Marshal’s Office (CCMO), the cities’ joint police department, routinely uses its enforcement authority to enforce the edicts and will of the FLDS; fails to protect non-FLDS individuals from victimization by FLDS individuals; refuses to cooperate with other law enforcement agencies’ investigations of FLDS individuals; selectively enforces laws against non-FLDS; and uses its authority to facilitate unlawful evictions of nonFLDS, among other unlawful conduct. The complaint also alleges that Colorado City, Hildale, Twin City Water Authority and Twin City Power have denied or unreasonably delayed providing

Report a Crime
Get a Job
Locate a Prison, Inmate, or Sex Offender
Apply for a Grant
Submit a Complaint
Report Waste, Fraud, Abuse or Misconduct to the Inspector General
Find Sales of Seized Property
Find Help and Information for Crime Victims
Register, Apply for Permits, or Request Records

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-against-twin-cities-colorado-city-arizona-and-hildale-utah[8/17/2016 2:14:11 PM]

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against the Twin Cities of Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, and Local Utility Companies Alleging Religious Discrimina...

water and electric service to non-FLDS residents, and that the municipalities refuse to issue building permits and prevent individuals from constructing or occupying existing housing because of the individuals’ religious affiliation.
“Religious freedom is a cherished principle of our democracy. City governments and their police departments may not favor one religious group over another and may not discriminate against individuals because of their religious affiliation,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “No individual in the United States should be targeted for discriminatory treatment by a city, its officials or the police because of his or her religion.”
Both Utah and Arizona have decertified CCMO officers. Three of the officers were decertified because they refused to cooperate with state law enforcement efforts. In addition, the sheriff’s offices in both states have been actively addressing the issues in the communities. The United States’ complaint seeks a court order prohibiting future discrimination by the defendants, monetary damages for those harmed by the defendants’ actions and a civil penalty.

Identify Our Most Wanted Fugitives
Find a Form
Report and Identify Missing Persons
Contact Us

This matter was investigated by attorneys from the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section and the Special Litigation Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. More information about the Civil Rights Division and the laws it enforces is available at www.usdoj.gov/crt. If you have any information regarding this matter, please contact the Justice Department at 1-800-8967743 or email the department at coloradocitydiscrimination@usdoj.gov.

The complaint is an allegation of unlawful conduct. The allegations must still be proved in federal court.

12-787

Civil Rights Division Updated September 15, 2014

ABOUT The Attorney General Budget & Performance Strategic Plans History
AGENCIES
BUSINESS Business Opportunities Small & Disadvantaged Business Grants

| 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

RESOURCES Forms Publications Case Highlights Legislative Histories Information for Victims in Large Cases

CAREERS Legal Careers Interns, Recent Graduates, and Fellows Veteran Recruitment
CONTACT

NEWS The Justice Blog Public Schedule Videos Photo Gallery

JUSTICE.GOV

Archive

Social Media

Accessibility

For Employees

Adobe Reader

Office of the

FOIA

Inspector General

No FEAR Act

Government

Information QualityResources

Privacy Policy

Open Government

Legal Policies & Plain Writing

Disclaimers

USA.gov

BusinessUSA

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-against-twin-cities-colorado-city-arizona-and-hildale-utah[8/17/2016 2:14:11 PM]