STAYED,MEDIATION
U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:19−cv−00094−RH−GRJ

DEMLER v. INCH Assigned to: JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE Referred to: MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/19/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

WILLIAM DEMLER INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

represented by JOSHUA AARON GLICKMAN SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE PL 6709 W 119TH STREET #198 OVERLAND PARK, KS 66209 913−213−3064 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RAY TASEFF FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE − MIAMI FL 3750 MIAMI TOWER 100 SE SECOND STREET MIAMI, FL 33131 305−358−2081 Email: rtaseff@floridajusticeinstitute.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SHAWN ALEX HELLER SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE PL 974 HOWARD AVENUE DUNEDIN, FL 34698 202−709−5744 Fax: 866−893−0416 Email: shawn@shawnheller.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DANTE PASQUALE TREVISANI FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE INC− MIAMI FL 100 SE 2ND ST 3750 BANK OF AMERICA TWR MIAMI, FL 33131 305−358−2081 Fax: 305−358−0910 Email: dtrevisani@floridajusticeinstitute.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MICHAEL GISI

represented by DANTE PASQUALE TREVISANI (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA AARON GLICKMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WAYNE PULA

represented by WAYNE PULA 118851 WAKULLA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 110 MELALEUCA DRIVE CRAWFORDVILLE, FL 32327 PRO SE
DANTE PASQUALE TREVISANI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA AARON GLICKMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
MARK S INCH IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

represented by ANITA J PATEL FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE COMPLEX LITIGATION PL−01 THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399 850−414−3694 Email: anita.patel@myfloridalegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MIGUEL A OLIVELLA , JR FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COMPLEX LITIGATION PL−01 THE CAPITOL 107 WEST GAINES STREET TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−1050 850−414−3817 Email: miguel.olivella@myfloridalegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/19/2019 02/19/2019 02/19/2019
02/20/2019

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against MARK S INCH ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number AFLNDC−4408342.), filed by William Demler. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by SHAWN ALEX HELLER on behalf of William Demler (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
3 DOCKET ANNOTATION BY COURT: Attorney Glickman Re 1 Complaint− Counsel is advised by this entry, that a Civil Cover Sheet should be filed as a separate entry using the event selection "Civil Cover Sheet" which is found under "Other Filings" under "Other Documents". PLEASE RE−FILE THE CIVIL COVER SHEET. Further, for future case openings: Please review the procedure for adding/creating new parties in the "Style Guide for Electronic Case Filing" and/or Chapter 10 of the "CM/ECF Attorney User's Guide", (both available on the clerk's website). (blb) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
4 CIVIL COVER SHEET. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/20/2019 02/21/2019 02/21/2019
02/25/2019 02/25/2019
02/28/2019 03/12/2019 03/15/2019 03/15/2019 03/17/2019
03/27/2019
04/05/2019
04/08/2019 04/09/2019
04/17/2019
04/17/2019 04/19/2019

5 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Summons by WILLIAM DEMLER (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
6 Summons Issued as to MARK S INCH. (blb) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
7 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO REASSIGN MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Case reassigned to MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES for all further proceedings. MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES A STAMPELOS no longer assigned to case Signed by CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 2/21/19. (blb) *For Future Filings Please Use New Judges Initials: 4:19cv94−MW/GRJ (Entered: 02/21/2019)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by RAY TASEFF on behalf of WILLIAM DEMLER (TASEFF, RAY) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
9 *Construed as a Motion to Intervene per 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE * MOTION TO JOIN AS PLAINTIFF TO CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF filed by EDWARD J BELLINGER (tss) Modified on 3/1/2019 (blb). (Entered: 02/26/2019)
10 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE 9 . Signed by CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 2/28/19. (blb) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by WILLIAM DEMLER. MARK S INCH served on 2/27/2019, answer due 3/20/2019. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 03/12/2019)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by MIGUEL A OLIVELLA, JR on behalf of MARK S INCH (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
13 MOTION to Extend Time by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
14 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. This Court has considered, without hearing, Defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's complaint. ECF No. 13 . The motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff's complaint on or before 4/5/2019. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 3/17/19. (blb) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
15 ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT. Case reassigned to JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE for all further proceedings. CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER no longer assigned to case. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 3/27/19. (blb)**Please use the new judge's initials for all future filings: 4:19cv94−RH/GRJ (Entered: 03/27/2019)
16 MOTION for More Definite Statement and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by MARK S INCH. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 4/19/2019). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
17 DOCKET ANNOTATION BY COURT: ISO prepared and placed in RH Referral folder (blb) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
18 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER : Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement Deadline set for 4/23/2019. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 5/23 /2019. Discovery due by 8/6/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/9/19. (blb) (Entered: 04/09/2019)
19 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 16 MOTION for More Definite Statement and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by WILLIAM DEMLER. (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) Modified on 4/18/2019 (blb). *Edit Title* (Entered: 04/17/2019)
20 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Extend Time as to the Court's Deadline for the Conference of Parties by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) Modified on 4/18/2019 (blb). *Edit Title* (Entered: 04/17/2019)
21 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT. The defendant's unopposed motion, ECF No. 19 , to extend the deadline to respond to the motion for more definitive statement is granted. The deadline is extended to 5/3/2019). Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L

04/19/2019
04/25/2019 04/29/2019
05/03/2019
05/03/2019 05/03/2019 05/05/2019
05/17/2019 05/20/2019
05/20/2019 05/20/2019 05/22/2019 05/22/2019 05/23/2019 05/24/2019

HINKLE on 4/19/19. (blb) (Entered: 04/19/2019)
22 ORDER EXTENDING THE RULE 26(f) DEADLINES. The defendant's unopposed motion, ECF No. 20 , to extend the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) deadlines is granted. The deadline for the attorney conference is extended to 5/17/2019. The deadline for the Rule 26(f) report is extended to 5/31/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/19/19. (blb) (Entered: 04/19/2019)
23 NOTICE TO JOIN filed by Jeffrey Ryder. (blb) Modified on 4/30/2019 (blb).*Treated as a Motion To Intervene per Order* (Entered: 04/25/2019)
24 ORDER DENYING MR. RYDER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE. Mr. Ryder's "notice" 23 is treated as a motion for leave to intervene as a named plaintiff. The motion is denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/29/19. (blb) (Entered: 04/30/2019)
25 ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT. The motion for a more definite statement, ECF No. 16 , is denied. The defendant must file an answer by 5/20/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/3/19. (blb) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
26 NOTICE by WILLIAM DEMLER re 25 Order,, Set Deadlines, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to Defendant's Motion for More Definitive Statement) (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
27 OOPS−−ORDER CORRECTING THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/3/19. (sms) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
28 ORDER FOR CROSS−SERVICE OF PAPERS IN RELATED CASES. Unless otherwise ordered, the clerk must provide notice of all filings in either of these cases to the attorneys of record in both cases and to Mr. Mendoza. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/5/2019. (blb) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
29 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification by WILLIAM DEMLER. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
30 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO MOVE FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. The plaintiff's unopposed motion, ECF No. 29 , to extend the deadline to move for class certification is granted. The deadline is extended to 6/3/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/20/19. (blb) (Entered: 05/20/2019)
31 MOTION to Dismiss by MARK S INCH. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 6/3/2019). (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 05/20/2019)
32 MEMORANDUM in Support re 31 MOTION to Dismiss filed by MARK S INCH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 05/20/2019)
ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE notified that action is needed Re: 22 Order. (blb) *No Attorney Conference Report filed.* (Entered: 05/22/2019)
33 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 05/22/2019)
34 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 31 MOTION to Dismiss by WILLIAM DEMLER. (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
35 SCHEDULING AND MEDIATION ORDER. Re: 33 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting :( Discovery due by 11/8/2019., Dispositive Motions to be filed by 11/29/2019., Jury Trial set for 2/18/2020 08:15 AM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE., Mediation Report due by 12/6/2019.), Case referred to mediation.. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/24/19. (blb) (Entered: 05/24/2019)

05/28/2019
05/28/2019 05/30/2019 05/30/2019 06/03/2019
06/04/2019 06/07/2019 06/13/2019 06/17/2019 06/19/2019 06/20/2019
06/21/2019 06/21/2019 06/21/2019 06/21/2019

36 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Summary Judgment Hearing set for 1/9/2020 11:00 AM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.
Call in number: 888−684−8852 Access code: 3243416# Security code: 0109#
s/ Cindy Markley Courtroom Deputy Clerk (ckm) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
37 NOTICE OF INQUIRY filed by Stacy A. Scott Jr. (blb) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
38 ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS. The motion to dismiss, ECF No. 31 , is denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/30/19. (blb) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
39 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS. The plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 34 , to extend the deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss is denied as moot. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/30/19. (blb) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
40 MOTION to Certify Class by WILLIAM DEMLER. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 6/17/2019). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − William Demler Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 − MP3/MP4 Program Notice of New Procedures, # 3 Exhibit 3 − MP3/MP4 Order Form, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Florida Inmates with MP3/MP4 Players, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Notice to Inmates re Multimedia Kiosk/Tablet Program, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Notice to Inmates re Digital Media Player Program, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Demler Grievance Response, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Ballard Grievance Response) (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
41 NOTICE of Appearance by ANITA J PATEL on behalf of MARK S INCH (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 06/04/2019)
ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE notified that action is needed Re: 22 Order. Rule 26 Meeting Report not filed. (blb) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
42 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
43 RESPONSE in Opposition re 40 MOTION to Certify Class filed by MARK S INCH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of John Bryant) (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
44 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Response to Motion for Class Certification by WILLIAM DEMLER. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
45 ORDER ALLOWING A REPLY MEMORANDUM ON CLASS CERTIFICATION. The plaintiff's unopposed motion, ECF No. 44 , for leave to file a reply memorandum in support of the class certification motion is granted. The deadline is July 2, 2019. (Replies due by 7/2/2019.) Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 06/20/2019. (rcb) Modified to add link for order on 7/2/2019 (rcb). (Entered: 06/21/2019)
46 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Response in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification by MARK S INCH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
47 AMENDED DOCUMENT by MARK S INCH. Amendment to 43 Response in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification. (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
48 NOTICE of Correction of Scrivener's Errors by MARK S INCH re 47 Amended Document, 46 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Response in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
49 MOTION to Strike 40 MOTION to Certify Class Declaration of William Demler and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by MARK S INCH. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 7/5/2019). (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 06/21/2019)

06/24/2019
07/01/2019 07/02/2019 08/19/2019 08/21/2019 08/21/2019 09/03/2019 09/03/2019 09/09/2019
09/12/2019 09/12/2019
09/13/2019 09/20/2019 09/23/2019 09/23/2019

50 ORDER ALLOWING AN AMENDED RESPONSE TO THE CLASS−CERTIFICATION MOTION. The defendants unopposed motion, ECF No. 46 , for leave to file an amended response to the plaintiffs class−certification motion is granted. The amended response, ECF No. 47 , as corrected by the notice of scriveners errors, ECF No. 48 , is deemed properly filed. The deadline for the plaintiff to file a reply memorandum remains July 2, 2019. (Plaintiff's Reply due by 7/2/2019.)Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 06/24/2019. (rcb) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
51 ORDER ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE DEMLER DECLARATION. The Secretary's motion, ECF No. 49 , to strike the Demler declaration is denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 7/1/19. (blb) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
52 REPLY to Response to Motion re 40 MOTION to Certify Class filed by WILLIAM DEMLER. (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 07/02/2019)
53 NOTICE OF PENDING, RELATED OR SIMILAR ACTION by MARK S INCH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Rodriguez v. JPay, Inc., et al. − Second Amended Class Action Complaint) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 08/19/2019)
54 MOTION for Summary Judgment by MARK S INCH. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response to summary judgment not filed earlier: 9/11/2019). (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
55 MEMORANDUM in Support re 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
56 NOTICE OF FILING EXHIBITS by MARK S INCH re 55 Memorandum in Support of Motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
57 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by MARK S INCH (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
58 MOTION to Defer Ruling, pursuant to Rule 56(d), on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, or alternatively, for an Extension of Time to Respond by WILLIAM DEMLER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Glickman Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Plaintiff's First Request for Production, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to FDOC, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Plaintiff's First Request for Admission) (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
59 CLASS MEMEBER GROVER W PEAVY NOTICE OF WITHDRAWING FROM CLASS ACTION (rcb) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
60 ORDER FOR CROSS−SERVICE OF PAPERS IN RELATED CASES AND FORREASSIGNMENT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The clerk must reassign No. 4:19cv282 to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones. The initials included in the case number are changed as shown in the case style of this order. Unless otherwise ordered, the clerk must provide notice of all filings in any of these three cases to the attorneys of record and pro se parties in all the cases. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 09/12/2019. (rcb) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 58 MOTION to Defer Ruling, pursuant to Rule 56(d), on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, or alternatively, for an Extension of Time to Respond . (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 9/27/2019). (rcb) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
61 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES by MARK S INCH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 09/20/2019)
62 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 58 MOTION to Defer Ruling, pursuant to Rule 56(d), on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, or alternatively, for an Extension of Time to Respond by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
63 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by WILLIAM DEMLER. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 09/23/2019)

09/25/2019
09/25/2019 09/27/2019
09/27/2019 10/01/2019
10/16/2019 10/25/2019 10/25/2019 10/25/2019 10/29/2019
11/04/2019 11/05/2019 11/05/2019 11/08/2019

64 ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The plaintiff's class−certification motion, ECF No. 40 , is denied. The defendant's summary−judgment motion, ECF No. 54 , is denied. The plaintiff's motion to defer a summary−judgment ruling or to extend the deadline to respond, ECF No. 58 , is denied as moot. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 9/25/19. (blb) (Entered: 09/25/2019)
65 Letter from GROVER W PEAVY requesting attorney address. (blb) *Address for Attorney Glickman mailed to Mr. Peavy* (Entered: 09/26/2019)
66 ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULE. The defendant's motion, ECF No. 62 , to defer a ruling on the summary−judgment motion is denied as moot. The joint motion to extend the discovery deadline and continue the trial, ECF No. 63 , is granted. The discovery deadline is extended to 2/7/2020. This automatically changes the summary−judgment and mediation deadlines, which are tied to the discovery deadline. The trial is rescheduled for the two−week trial period that begins on May 4, 2020. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 9/27/19. (blb) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 5/4/2020 08:15 AM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. (blb) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
67 ORDER FOR CROSS−SERVICE OF PAPERS IN RELATED CASES AND FOR REASSIGNMENT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The clerk must reassign No. 4:19cv234 to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones. The initials included in the case number are changed as shown in the case style of this order. Unless otherwise ordered, the clerk must provide notice of all filings in any of these four cases to the attorneys of record and pro se parties in all the cases. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 10/1/19. (blb) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
68 MOTION for Joinder filed by Ryan Clarke. (blb) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
69 MOTION to Compel Answer to Interrogatory by MARK S INCH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
70 ORDER DENYING 68 THE MOTION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CLASS. Mr. Clark's motion, ECF No. 68 , to be included in the plaintiff class is denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 10/25/2019. (rcb) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
71 MOTION to Alter or Amend Order Denying Class Certification by WILLIAM DEMLER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Spreadsheet of Music Purchased Under the Digital Media Player Program, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Contract Between Florida Department of Corrections and JPay, Inc.) (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
72 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING on 69 Motion to Compel: Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 11/5/2019 11:00 AM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.
Call in number: 888−684−8852 Access code: 3243416# Security code: 1105#
s/ Cindy Markley Courtroom Deputy Clerk (ckm) (Entered: 10/29/2019)
73 RESPONSE in Opposition re 69 MOTION to Compel Answer to Interrogatory filed by WILLIAM DEMLER. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
74 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 11/5/2019 re 69 Motion to Compel Answer to Interrogatory. Ruling by Court: Motion is GRANTED. An order is forthcoming. (Court Reporter Megan Hague) (ckm) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
75 ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY. The defendant's motion to compel, ECF No. 69 , is granted. By November 19, 2019, the plaintiff must serve a complete answer to interrogatory 2. The plaintiff must pay the defendant $600 as attorney's fees. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 11/5/19. (blb) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
76 RESPONSE in Opposition re 71 MOTION to Alter or Amend Order Denying Class Certification filed by MARK S INCH. (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/15/2019 11/18/2019 11/18/2019
11/19/2019
11/21/2019 11/22/2019
11/26/2019 11/27/2019 12/02/2019 12/02/2019 12/02/2019
12/03/2019 12/04/2019 12/04/2019 12/05/2019 12/06/2019

77 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Response to Motion to Alter or Amend Order on Class Certification by WILLIAM DEMLER. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
78 Consent MOTION to Extend Time to Serve Amended Response to Interrogatory Number 2 by WILLIAM DEMLER. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 11/18/2019)
79 ORDER ALLOWING A REPLY MEMORANDUM ON CLASS CERTIFICATION.The plaintiff's unopposed motion, ECF No. 77 , for leave to file a reply memorandum in support of its motion to alter or amend the order on class certification is granted. The plaintiff may file a reply memorandum by 11/25/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 11/18/19. (blb) (Entered: 11/18/2019)
80 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO ANSWER INTERROGATORY 2.The plaintiff's unopposed motion, ECF No. 78 , to extend the deadline to answer interrogatory number 2, as required by the November 5, 2019 order, is granted. The deadline is extended to 11/26/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 11/19/19. (blb) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
81 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 79 Order,, Set Deadlines, by WILLIAM DEMLER. (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
82 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLNE FOR A REPLY MEMORANDUM ON CLASS CERTIFICATION. The plaintiff's unopposed motion, ECF No. 81 , to extend the deadline for a reply memorandum in support of its motion to alter or amend the order on class certification is granted. The deadline is extended to 12/2/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 11/22/2019. (blb) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
83 Second MOTION to Extend Time to Serve Amended Response to Interrogatory Number 2 (Unopposed) by WILLIAM DEMLER. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 11/26/2019)
84 MOTION to Stay Depositions and Motion for Protective Order by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 11/27/2019)
85 ORDER denying 84 motion to stay and for a protective order. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/2/19. (RH) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
86 REPLY to Response to Motion re 71 MOTION to Alter or Amend Order Denying Class Certification filed by WILLIAM DEMLER. (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
87 SECOND ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO ANSWER INTERROGATORY 2. The plaintiff's unopposed motion, ECF No. 83 , to extend the deadline to answer interrogatory number 2, as required by the November 5, 2019 order, is granted. The deadline is extended to 12/6/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/2/19. (blb) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
88 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply as to 86 Plaintiff's Reply to Response to Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Class Certification by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
89 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES by MARK S INCH re 76 Response in Opposition to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite 1) (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 12/04/2019)
90 RESPONSE in Opposition re 88 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply as to 86 Plaintiff's Reply to Response to Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Class Certification filed by WILLIAM DEMLER. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 12/04/2019)
91 RESPONSE by WILLIAM DEMLER re 89 Notice (Other) of Supplemental Authority. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 12/05/2019)
92 MOTION for Protective Order to Preserve Evidence by MARK S INCH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Olivella Letter, # 2 Exhibit 2: Trevisani Email , # 3 Exhibit 3: User Guide) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) Modified to add Description of Exhibits on 12/9/2019 (blb). (Entered: 12/06/2019)

12/16/2019
12/20/2019 12/20/2019 12/23/2019 12/31/2019
01/07/2020 01/09/2020
01/09/2020 01/09/2020 01/13/2020

93 ORDER ALLOWING ANOTHER DEFENSE MEMORANDUM ON CLASS CERTIFICATION. The defendant's motion, ECF No. 88 , for leave to file another memorandum on class certification is granted. The defendant may file by a memorandum of not more than 2,000 words by 12/23/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/16/19. (blb) (Entered: 12/16/2019)
94 RESPONSE in Opposition re 92 MOTION for Protective Order to Preserve Evidence filed by WILLIAM DEMLER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Defendant's Request for Electronically Stored Information and Tangible Thing, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Emails Between Counsel) (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
96 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to GEORGE MENDOZA Re: 70 & 69 (rcb)***Forwarded to Okeechobee CI, 3420 NE 168 Street, Okeechobee, Florida 34972*** (Entered: 12/23/2019)
95 RESPONSE by MARK S INCH re 86 Reply to Response to Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Class Certification. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Carla Knysak) (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 12/23/2019)
97 ORDER TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE. The defendant's motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to preserve evidence, ECF No. 92 , is granted in part. The parties must cooperate to allow inspection and nondestructive testing of the MP3 player. No party may engage in destructive testing except with the other side's consent or a court order. This order does not relieve any party of its preexisting duty to preserve evidence. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/31/19. (blb) (Entered: 12/31/2019)
98 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION: The Summary Judgment Hearing set for January 9, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. is canceled. (ckm) (Entered: 01/07/2020)
99 ORDER FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Attorney Conference to take place by 3/25/2020. Pretrial Stipulation due by 4/8/2020. TELEPHONIC Pretrial Conference set for 4/15/2020 10:00 AM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. Bench Trial set for 5/4/2020 09:00 AM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/9/20. (blb) Modified on 3/20/2020 to change to Bench Trial and change starting time (ckm). (Entered: 01/09/2020)
100 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by WILLIAM DEMLER. (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 01/09/2020)
101 ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION − The motion, ECF No. 71 , to alter or amend the order denying class certification is denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/9/2020. (cle) (Entered: 01/10/2020)
102 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Pretrial Conference set for 4/15/2020 10:00 AM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.

Call in number: 888−684−8852 Access code: 3243416# Security code: 0415#

01/17/2020 01/20/2020

s/ Cindy Markley Courtroom Deputy Clerk (ckm) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
103 NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION by WILLIAM DEMLER re 100 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
104 ORDER DENYING A CONTINUANCE BUT GRANTING LEAVE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS ON SPECIFIC CONDITIONS − The motion to extend the discovery deadline and continue the trial, ECF No. 100 , is denied. The discovery deadline remains February 7, 2020. The parties nonetheless may depose any person on a specific date on or before 4/8/2020. This order does not change the mediation and summary−judgment deadlines. The trial remains set for the trial period that begins on May 4, 2020. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/20/2020. (cle) (Entered: 01/21/2020)

01/21/2020 01/22/2020 01/22/2020 01/24/2020 01/24/2020
01/27/2020

105 MOTION for Reconsideration re 101 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Class Certification) by WILLIAM DEMLER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Disciplinary Report Documents, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Letter to General Counsel) (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 01/21/2020)
106 MOTION to Take Deposition from William Demler DC#655709 by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
107 NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION by WILLIAM DEMLER re 105 MOTION for Reconsideration re 101 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Class Certification) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Petition for Writ of Mandamus) (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
108 ORDER FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE.By a separate notice, the clerk must set a status conference by telephone at the earliest available date. The agenda will include the merits of, and the procedure for addressing, the motion to reconsider the order denying class certification. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/24/20. (blb) (Entered: 01/24/2020)
109 ORDER ALLOWING DEPOSITIONS OF INMATES. The defendant's unopposed motion, ECF No. 106 , for leave to depose the inmate plaintiff William Demler is granted. The parties may depose Mr. Demler and, if both sides so agree, may depose any other inmate. Any such deposition must take place at a time and under conditions acceptable to the inmate's warden or designee. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/24/20. (blb) (Entered: 01/24/2020)
110 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/5/2020 10:00 AM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.

Call in number: 888−684−8852 Access code: 3243416# Security code: 0205#

01/31/2020 02/03/2020 02/04/2020
02/04/2020
02/04/2020 02/05/2020

s/ Cindy Markley Courtroom Deputy Clerk (ckm) (Entered: 01/27/2020)
111 RESPONSE in Opposition re 105 MOTION for Reconsideration re 101 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Class Certification) filed by MARK S INCH. (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
112 NOTICE OF MEDIATION re Scheduling by WILLIAM DEMLER (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 02/03/2020)
113 NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION by WILLIAM DEMLER re 105 MOTION for Reconsideration re 101 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Class Certification) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Second Declaration of Plaintiff William Demler) (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 02/04/2020)
114 NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION by WILLIAM DEMLER re 105 MOTION for Reconsideration re 101 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying Class Certification) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Docket for Rodriguez, et al. v. JPay, Inc., et al.) (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 02/04/2020)
115 RESPONSE by MARK S INCH re 114 Notice (Other), 113 Notice (Other), . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 02/04/2020)
116 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/5/2020. Court hears argument of counsel on Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider. Ruling by Court: Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint to add additional plaintiffs (deadline March 5). Depositions of additional plaintiffs and 30(b)(6) representative to take place by March 24. Mediation to occur by March 31. An order is forthcoming. (Court Reporter Lisa Snyder) (ckm) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/06/2020 02/10/2020
02/20/2020 02/21/2020 02/21/2020 02/23/2020 02/24/2020 02/24/2020 02/26/2020 02/26/2020
02/26/2020 02/27/2020 02/27/2020 02/28/2020 02/28/2020
02/28/2020

117 STIPULATION for Purposes of Class Representative by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
118 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, ALLOWING DEPOSITIONS, AND EXTENDING THE MEDIATION DEADLINE. The plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 105 , to reconsider the class−certification issue is granted in part and remains pending in part. The plaintiff may file by 3/5/2020 a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add new named plaintiffs. The deadline to mediate is extended to 3/31/2020. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/10/20. (blb) (Entered: 02/10/2020)
119 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (Two Business Days) by WILLIAM DEMLER. (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
120 RESPONSE to Motion re 119 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (Two Business Days) filed by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
123 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to GEORGE MENDOZA Re: 108 & 109 (rcb). **ECF 108 & 109 forwarded to George Mendoza at RMC MAIN UNIT PO BOX 628, LAKE BUTLER, FLORIDA 32054−0628 per DOC website as of 2/23/2020** . (Entered: 02/24/2020)
121 NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION by WILLIAM DEMLER re 119 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (Two Business Days) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Deposition Excerpt of Kasey Bickley) (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 02/23/2020)
122 RESPONSE to Motion re 119 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (Two Business Days) filed by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 02/24/2020)
124 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR SUMMARY−JUDGMENT MOTIONS. The plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 119 , to extend the deadline for filing summary−judgment motions is granted. The deadline is extended to 3/3/2020. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/24/20. (blb) (Entered: 02/25/2020)
125 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (Unopposed) by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 02/26/2020)
126 NOTICE OF FILING by MARK S INCH (Attachments: # 1 Deposition transcript of William Demler taken February 3, 2020, # 2 Deposition transcript of Kasey Bickley taken February 4, 2020, # 3 Plaintiff's Answers & Objections to Interrogatories dated September 30, 2019, # 4 Plaintiff's Revised Answer to Interrogatory Number 2 dated November 27, 2019) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 02/26/2020)
127 RESPONSE by WILLIAM DEMLER re 126 Notice (Other), . (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 02/26/2020)
128 ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE SUMMARY−JUDGMENT DEADLINE. The defendant's motion, ECF No. 125 , to extend the deadline to move for summary judgment is denied Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/27/20. (blb) (Entered: 02/27/2020)
129 NOTICE OF INABILITY TO FILE AMENDED ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES WITH WITHDRAWN OBJECTIONS by MARK S INCH re 127 Response/Reply (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 02/27/2020)
130 RESPONSE by WILLIAM DEMLER re 129 Notice (Other) . (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
131 NOTICE OF FILING AMENDED ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES WITH WITHDRAWN OBJECTIONS by MARK S INCH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Plaintiff's Second Amended Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff William Demler − Unexecuted, dated February 27, 2020) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
132 NOTICE OF FILING by MARK S INCH (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Amended Response to Defendant's First Requests for Admission to Plaintiff) (OLIVELLA,

03/02/2020 03/03/2020 03/03/2020 03/03/2020 03/03/2020 03/03/2020 03/03/2020
03/05/2020
03/05/2020 03/06/2020

MIGUEL) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
133 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by WILLIAM DEMLER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT) (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
134 NOTICE OF FILING by MARK S INCH (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of John G. Bryant, III) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
135 Second NOTICE OF MEDIATION re Scheduling to Take Place on March 5, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. by WILLIAM DEMLER (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
136 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT by MARK S INCH (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
137 MOTION for Summary Judgment by MARK S INCH. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response to summary judgment not filed earlier: 3/24/2020). (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
138 MEMORANDUM in Support re 137 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by MARK S INCH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
139 MOTION for Summary Judgment by WILLIAM DEMLER. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response to summary judgment not filed earlier: 3/24/2020). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Keefe Contract, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Amendment 1 to Keefe Contract, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Amendment 6 to Keefe Contract, # 4 Exhibit 4 − FDOC Digital Music Program Advertisement, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Digital Music Player User Guide, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Digital Music Program Promotion, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Rule 30b6 Deposition of Carl Kirkland, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Digital Music Player Advertisement, # 9 Exhibit 9 − FDOC Responses to Second Set of Interrogatories, # 10 Exhibit 10 − FDOC Amended Responses to First Request for Admissions, # 11 Exhibit 11 − FDOC Request for Proposal, # 12 Exhibit 12 − FDOC Invitation to Negotiate, # 13 Exhibit 13 − Award Tabulation, # 14 Exhibit 14 − JPay Formal Protest, # 15 Exhibit 15 − Rule 30b6 Deposition of Kasey Bickley, # 16 Exhibit 16 − Inmate Kiosk Recommendations, # 17 Exhibit 17 − Inmate Kiosk Overview, # 18 Exhibit 18 − Notice to Inmates, # 19 Exhibit 19 − FDOC Second Amended Responses to First Interrogatories) (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
140 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Corrected) by WILLIAM DEMLER. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response to summary judgment not filed earlier: 3/26/2020). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Keefe Contract, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Amendment 1 to Keefe Contract, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Amendment 6 to Keefe Contract, # 4 Exhibit 4 − FDOC Digital Music Program Advertisement, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Digital Music Player User Guide, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Digital Music Program Promotion, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Rule 30b6 Deposition of Carl Kirkland, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Digital Music Player Advertisement, # 9 Exhibit 9 − FDOC Responses to Second Set of Interrogatories, # 10 Exhibit 10 − FDOC Amended Responses to First Request for Admissions, # 11 Exhibit 11 − FDOC Request for Proposal, # 12 Exhibit 12 − FDOC Invitation to Negotiate, # 13 Exhibit 13 − Award Tabulation, # 14 Exhibit 14 − JPay Formal Protest, # 15 Exhibit 15 − Rule 30b6 Deposition of Kasey Bickley, # 16 Exhibit 16 − Inmate Kiosk Recommendations, # 17 Exhibit 17 − Inmate Kiosk Overview, # 18 Exhibit 18 − Notice to Inmates, # 19 Exhibit 19 − FDOC Second Amended Responses to First Interrogatories) (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
141 NOTICE OF FILING CORRECTED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by WILLIAM DEMLER re 140 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Corrected) (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
142 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT. The motion for leave to amend, ECF No 133 , is granted. The complaint is amended as set out in ECF No. 133 −1 effective as of March 6, 2020. The defendant must file an amendment to its answer or a Rule 12 motion by 3/20/2020. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/6/20. (blb) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

03/13/2020 03/13/2020 03/15/2020 03/17/2020 03/17/2020 03/19/2020 03/19/2020 03/20/2020
03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/24/2020
03/27/2020
03/28/2020 03/31/2020 04/01/2020 04/01/2020

143 NOTICE OF FILING by MARK S INCH (Attachments: # 1 Deposition of Wayne Pula, # 2 Deposition of Michael Gisi) (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
144 RESPONSE to Motion re 133 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by MARK S INCH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (PATEL, ANITA) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
145 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI, WAYNE PULA re 144 Response to Motion, 133 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint , 142 Order,, Set Deadlines, (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 03/15/2020)
146 MEDIATION REPORT − Impasse. (SANTORO, MARIA) (Entered: 03/17/2020)
147 RESPONSE in Opposition re 140 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Corrected) filed by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 03/17/2020)
148 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 147 Response in Opposition to Motion by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI, WAYNE PULA. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 03/19/2020)
149 RESPONSE to Motion re 148 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 147 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 03/19/2020)
150 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR A REPLY MEMORANDUM. The plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 148 , to extend the deadline to file a reply memorandum in support of the summary−judgment motion is granted. The deadline is extended to 3/31/2020). Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/20/20. (blb) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
151 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
152 MOTION to Dismiss Proposed Amendment to Complaint/Amended Complaint, Motion to Transfer Venue, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by MARK S INCH. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 4/3/2020). (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
153 RESPONSE in Opposition re 137 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI, WAYNE PULA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Email Communication Between FDOC and Keefe, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Email Communication Between FDOC and JPay, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Declaration of David Reutter, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Declaration of Sabrina Reutter) (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 03/24/2020)
154 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR A REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANTS SUMMARY−JUDGMENT MOTION. The defendant's motion, ECF No. 151 , to extend the deadline for a reply memorandum in support of his summary−judgment motion is granted. The deadline is extended to 4/7/2020. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/27/20. (blb) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
155 JOINT MOTION FOR A TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI, WAYNE PULA. (TREVISANI, DANTE) Modified Title on 3/30/2020 (blb). (Entered: 03/28/2020)
156 REPLY to Response to Motion re 140 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Corrected) filed by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI, WAYNE PULA. (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
157 REPLY to Response to Motion re 140 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Corrected) filed by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI, WAYNE PULA. (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
158 NOTICE OF FILING CORRECTED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI, WAYNE PULA re 157 Reply to Response to Motion (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 04/01/2020)

04/03/2020 04/03/2020 04/07/2020 04/15/2020 04/16/2020
04/16/2020 04/27/2020 04/27/2020 05/01/2020 05/14/2020 05/22/2020 05/26/2020
05/26/2020

159 ORDER granting 155 Motion for Hearing and AMENDING THE SCHEDULE. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/3/20. (sms) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
160 RESPONSE in Opposition re 152 MOTION to Dismiss Proposed Amendment to Complaint/Amended Complaint, Motion to Transfer Venue, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI, WAYNE PULA. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
161 REPLY to Response to Motion re 137 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by MARK S INCH. (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
162 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/15/2020. Parties discuss stipulation for class certification and settlement. Ruling by Court: The class will be certified. Motion to approve settlement to be filed within one month. All other proceedings are stayed. An order is forthcoming. (Court Reporter Megan Hague) (ckm) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
163 ORDER CERTIFYING A CLASS. The plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, ECF No. 105 , is granted in part. A class is certified consisting of all current Florida Department of Corrections prisoners whose digital media files were taken, or will be taken, pursuant to the Department's termination of the MP3 program, and who purchased more than 75 songs through that program. The parties must file by 5/14/2020 a motion for preliminary approval of their settlement. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/16/20. (blb) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
164 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 137 and 140 , and motion to dismiss, ECF No. 152 , are denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/16/20. (blb) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
165 MOTION TO ADD/INCLUDE IN CLASS ACTION filed by James Brennan. (blb) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
166 MOTION TO INCLUDE IN CLASS ACTION OF ADD AS A CLASS MEMBER filed by Erin Atac.. (blb) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
167 ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO BE ADDED AS PLAINTIFFS. The motions to be added as plaintiffs, ECF Nos. 165 and 166 , are denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/1/20. (blb) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
168 Joint MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI, WAYNE PULA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Class Action Settlement Agreement, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 05/14/2020)
169 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 28 U.S.C. § 1715 by MARK S INCH (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (OLIVELLA, MIGUEL) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
170 ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND AUTHORIZING NOTICE TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS. The Agreement has been reached on behalf of the following Class, which has been certified by the Court pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 163 ). The Court now finds that the settlement of this action, as embodied in the terms of the Agreement, is preliminarily approved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). All proceedings in this action are stayed until further order of the Court, except as may be necessary to implement the terms of the settlement. Any Class member who wishes to submit a Statement of Objection or Comment and/or Notice of Intention to Appear shall file such a Statement and/or Notice with this Court before 8/18/2020. The Final Fairness Hearing, identified in the Notice of Proposed Settlement, is scheduled for August 25, 2020, and will be conducted telephonically. At the final hearing, the Court will determine whether the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/26/20. (blb) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
171 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Final Fairness Hearing set for 8/25/2020 01:00 PM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.

Call in number: 888−684−8852 Access code: 3243416# Security code: 1234#

06/01/2020 06/04/2020 06/08/2020 06/08/2020 06/08/2020 06/08/2020 06/08/2020 06/08/2020 06/09/2020 06/09/2020 06/09/2020 06/10/2020 06/10/2020 06/10/2020 06/10/2020 06/10/2020 06/10/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020

s/ Cindy Markley Courtroom Deputy Clerk (ckm) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
172 NOTICE to Clerk by WAYNE PULA (blb) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
173 NOTICE by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI, WAYNE PULA re 172 Notice (Other) (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
175 Objection to Settlement filed by KEVIN R BALKO. (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
176 Class Party Objections filed by VICTOR HICKOX. (Entered: 06/10/2020)
177 Class Party Objections filed by MARTE RAGAN. (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
180 NOTICE of Intention to Appear filed by WARREN MESSNER. (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
183 NOTICE of Inquiry filed by KEITH WILSON. (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
184 NOTICE of Intention to Appear filed by JONATHAN NELSON. (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
174 NOTICE by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI, WAYNE PULA re 172 Notice (Other), 173 Notice (Other) (HELLER, SHAWN) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
178 Written Comments on Proposed Settlement filed by JOHN LINSSENS. (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
179 Objection Titled "Fairness Hearing" filed by JOHN EDWARD NAILS. (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
181 Statement of Objections or Comment filed by KEITH BENAFIELD. (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
182 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Class Party Statement Objections filed by VICTOR HICKOX (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
185 NOTICE Motion for Statement of Objection filed by ANTHONY THOMAS. (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
186 Statement of Comment filed by AUTHUR SPENCER. (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
187 Comment on the Proposed Settlement filed by ROOSEVELT ROUNDS. (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
188 Objection to Proposed Settlement filed by DANIEL ROCKMORE. (blb) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
190 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by Qinard Lamar Collins. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
191 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by Michael Gray. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
193 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed Derrick Hardgrove. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
194 REQUEST to be Placed on Settlement List, file Ronald A. Corker. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
197 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by George Richard Mendoza. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
199 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by John Merritt. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)

06/11/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020 06/12/2020 06/12/2020 06/12/2020 06/12/2020 06/12/2020 06/12/2020 06/12/2020 06/15/2020 06/15/2020 06/15/2020 06/15/2020 06/15/2020 06/15/2020 06/17/2020 06/17/2020 06/17/2020 06/17/2020 06/18/2020
06/18/2020

202 REQUEST to Join Settlement, filed by Ramon M. Sanchez. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
209 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by Frank A. Walls. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
210 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by John David Wilson. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
211 REQUEST to Join Settlement, filed by Keith M. Cassista. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
212 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by Joseph Cate. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
189 REQUEST to be Placed on Settlement List, filed by Edward Joseph Ritchie. (cle) (Entered: 06/15/2020)
192 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by Shane Cory Griffin. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
195 AGREEMENT With Settlement Proposal, filed by Clinton Jordan. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
196 REQUEST to Join Settlement, filed by Carlton X. Matthews. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
198 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by Fernando Roig. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
205 REQUEST to Join Settlement, filed Julie Schenecker. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
207 AGREEMENT With Settlement Proposal, filed by Michael Torrey. (cle) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
200 Objections/Comments to Proposed Settlement filed by Omar Franklin Barnes. (blb) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
201 Request to Join the Class Action filed by Christopher Henderson. (blb) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
203 Settlement Comment filed by Luis Arzola. (blb) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
204 Request for Benefits filed by Michael Moody. (blb) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
206 Requesting Order of Transport to Appear filed by Jason Chaveco. (blb) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
208 Statement of Objections or Comments to Fairness Hearing filed by Joseph Wayne Allen. (blb) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
213 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by Mark Wayne Jones.. (cle) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
215 REQUEST to Join Settlement and AGREEMENT With Settlement, filed by Darryl Torrey Gibson. (cle) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
216 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by Susan Baker. (cle) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
217 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by Warren Chestang. (cle) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
214 ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO BE TRANSPORTED TO THE FAIRNESS HEARING − Mr. Chaveco's motion to be transported to the fairness hearing, ECF No. 206 , is denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/18/2020. (cle) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
219 OBJECTION To Proposed Settlement, filed by Orlando Cerda. (cle) (Entered: 06/19/2020)

06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/19/2020 06/19/2020 06/22/2020 06/22/2020 06/22/2020 06/22/2020 06/22/2020 06/22/2020 06/22/2020 06/22/2020 06/22/2020 06/22/2020 06/23/2020 06/24/2020 06/24/2020 06/24/2020 06/24/2020
06/24/2020 06/24/2020 06/25/2020

220 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by Rene Gutierrez. (cle) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
221 REQUEST to Join Settlement and AGREEMENT With Settlement, filed by Raymond Holmes, Sr. (cle) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
222 AGREEMENT With Proposed Settlement, filed by Leland Johnson. (cle) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
224 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by Roderick C. Timmons. (cle) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
218 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Wayne Pula by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI. (TREVISANI, DANTE) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
223 OBJECTION to Proposed Settlement, filed by Juan Carlos Morales. (cle) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
225 OBJECTION re 170 ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT by Wilbert Larkins. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
226 Request to Join filed by KEVIN H SIMMONS. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
227 MOTION REQUESTING TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY filed by REGINALD WHITE. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
228 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR filed by DALE PATE. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
229 NOTICE −MOTION OF OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT filed by REGINALD WHITE. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
230 OBJECTION filed by BOBBY ALLEN CREWS. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
231 COMMENT FROM CLASS MEMBER filed by RALPH E CROMPTON. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
232 COMMENT ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT filed by DEDRIC GANDY. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
233 STATEMENT OF COMMENT filed by DAVID A WRIGHT. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
238 OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT filed by DALE PATE. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
237 NOTICE OF INTENT TO BE A CLASSMEMBER filed by GEORGE ORTIZ. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
234 OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT filed by SCOTT DRIVER. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
235 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF OBJECTION/COMMENT filed by ZACHARY H HOWARD. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
236 COMMENT ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT filed by RASHAD ISHMAEL SHABAZZ. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
239 OBJECTION AND MOTION TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by AARON ATAC, JOHN BREENAN, LUIS JOHNSON, JOSHUA B WHITAKER, GARRY JOHNSON. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
240 COMMENT ON THE CLASS ACTION filed by DONALD H SMITH (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
241 LETTER REGARDING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT filed by JESSE ALAN WALKER. (blb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
242 NOTICE of Objection and/or Notice of Appeal on the Proposed Settlement filed by ROBERT J BAILEY. (blb) (Entered: 06/28/2020)

06/25/2020 06/26/2020
06/26/2020 06/29/2020 06/29/2020 06/29/2020 06/29/2020 06/29/2020 07/01/2020 07/01/2020 07/02/2020 07/02/2020 07/02/2020 07/03/2020
07/06/2020 07/06/2020 07/06/2020
07/06/2020 07/06/2020 07/06/2020 07/07/2020 07/08/2020 07/08/2020

243 NOTICE REGARDING SETTLEMENT filed by WENDELL HOWARD COX. (blb) (Entered: 06/28/2020)
245 STATEMENT OF OBJECTION OR COMMENT AND/OR NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR filed by LEVERT STEWART. (blb) (Entered: 06/30/2020)
246 STATEMENT OF COMMENT filed by DEVIN LAMM. (blb) (Entered: 06/30/2020)
244 OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT filed by TERRY E SEARS. (blb) (Entered: 06/30/2020)
247 Letter from ALEJANDRO BENABE'. (blb) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
248 MOTION to Request Address for Counsel and to be a Recipient of the Approved Proposed Settlement filed by Travis Wilson. (blb) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
249 Objection to Proposed Settlement filed by LOUIS J TICKNOR. (blb) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
250 Amended Objection to Proposed Settlement filed by LANCE JAVON SHEFFIELD. (blb) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
251 MOTION for Video Telephonic Hearing filed by JOHN F CASEY III. (blb) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
252 Request to Join Lawsuit filed by DAVID J SALAMACHA. (blb) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
254 NOTICE OF OBJECTION filed by JAMIE RODRIGUEZ. (blb) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
255 COMMENT and QUESTION filed by BEN CASTIGLIONE. (blb) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
256 NOTICE OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT filed by DAVEE JAE FEAZELL. (blb) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
253 ORDER ON REQUESTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FAIRNESS HEARING AND FOR THE CLASS ATTORNEYS' ADDRESS. The motions to attend the fairness hearing by video or audio, ECF Nos. 227 and 251 , are granted in part. The motion to disclose the class attorneys' address, ECF No. 248 , is granted in part. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 7/3/20. (blb) (Entered: 07/05/2020)
257 OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT filed by ALLEN MOORE. (blb) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
258 OBJECTION filed by DANIEL J CRAVEN. (blb) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
259 NOTICE OF FILING CLASS PARTY STATEMENT OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed by EARL JOHNSON. (blb) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
260 OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT filed by ERIC L WILLIAMS. (blb) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
261 REQUEST TO BE ADVISED REGARDING CASE filed by IRA RANDALL. (blb) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
262 NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST filed by WAYNE PULA. (blb) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
263 NOTICE TO JOIN filed by CHARLES ANTHONY SCOBLE. (blb) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
264 STATEMENT OF OBJECTION filed by GEORGE B PICKENS. (blb) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
265 OBJECTION filed by JEROME S MARION. (blb) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/09/2020 07/10/2020 07/10/2020 07/13/2020
07/13/2020
07/13/2020 07/13/2020 07/13/2020 07/14/2020
07/16/2020 07/16/2020 07/16/2020 07/20/2020 07/20/2020 07/20/2020 07/20/2020 07/20/2020 07/20/2020 07/22/2020 07/22/2020 07/22/2020 07/22/2020 07/23/2020 07/23/2020

268 OBJECTION To Proposed Settlement, filed by James Bartlett. (cle) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
271 STATEMENT OF OBJECTION filed by JAMES STILSON. (blb) (Entered: 07/16/2020)
273 NOTICE OF OBJECTION OR COMMENT filed by SHEIR ELLIS. (blb) (Entered: 07/16/2020)
266 ORDER ALLOWING CLASS COUNSEL TO WITHDRAW FROM REPRESENTING MR. PULA − The motion for leave for Mr. Trevisani, Mr. Taseff, Mr. Heller, and Mr. Glickman to withdraw as attorneys for Mr. Pula, ECF No. 218 , is granted. The attorneys will continue as counsel for the other named plaintiffs and as class counsel. Mr. Pula will continue as a named plaintiff and class member but is removed as a class representative. He will be deemed to be representing himself unless and until an attorney appears for him. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 7/13/2020. (cle) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
267 Joint MOTION for Amendment of Class Definition, Approval of Supplemental Notice, and to Reschedule the Final Fairness Hearing by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Supplemental Notice) (GLICKMAN, JOSHUA) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
270 LETTER OF INTENT filed by GEORGIE BRADWELL. (blb) (Entered: 07/16/2020)
272 OBJECTION filed by GREGORY HASTON (blb) (Entered: 07/16/2020)
274 NOTICE TO BE COMPENSATED filed by BYRON COPELAND. (blb) (Entered: 07/16/2020)
269 JOINT NOTICE OF FILING FULLY EXECUTED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Fully Executed Class Action Settlement Agreement with Interlineations) (HELLER, SHAWN) Modified Title on 7/15/2020 (blb). (Entered: 07/14/2020)
275 LETTER TO PROTEST THE SETTLEMENT filed by JAMES DUCKETT. (blb) (Entered: 07/17/2020)
276 NOTICE of Appearance filed by TYRONE MCAFFEE. (blb) (Entered: 07/17/2020)
277 STATEMENT OF OBJECTION OR COMMENT filed by DALE B STEWART. (blb) (Entered: 07/17/2020)
278 OBJECTION filed by GERALD CARTER. (blb) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
279 OBJECTION filed by DEXTER CLAYTON. (blb) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
280 REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT filed by CURTIS OVLETREA. (blb) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
281 OBJECTION filed by R JONES. (blb) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
282 STATEMENT OF OBJECTION filed by ROBERT SURDAKOWSKI. (blb) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
283 OBJECTION filed by RAY NEVELS. (blb) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
284 OBJECTION filed by KENNETH KENDRICK. (blb) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
285 OBJECTION filed by VERNON FRAZIER. (blb) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
286 OBJECTION filed by WISNER DELICE. (blb) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
287 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF OBJECTION filed by STEPHEN D GRAINGER. (blb) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
289 NOTICE TO BE INCLUDED IN LAWSUIT filed by DAVON Q SHEFFIELD. (blb) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
290 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS filed by ERIC SCHROETER. (blb) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/23/2020 07/23/2020 07/23/2020 07/24/2020 07/27/2020
07/27/2020 07/27/2020 07/27/2020 07/27/2020 07/28/2020

291 OBJECTION filed by BRYAN HOWER. (blb) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
292 STATEMENT OF CLAIM filed by BRIAN CARBONE. (blb) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
293 SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL filed by WILLIE JAMES CANADY. (blb) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
295 STATEMENT OF OBJECTION filed by STEVEN GRIFFIN. (blb) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
288 ORDER AMENDING THE CLASS DEFINITION, REQUIRING NOTICE, AND EXTENDING DEADLINES. The class representatives' motion, ECF No. 267 , to amend the class definition is granted. The class definition is amended to substitute "100" in place of "75," so that the class now consists of: All current Florida Department of Corrections prisoners whose digital media files were taken, or will be taken, pursuant to the Department's termination of the MP3 program, and who purchased more than 100 songs through that program. Supplemental notice must be given substantially in the form of ECF No. 267 −1. And notice must be given to the Attorney General of the United States as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715. The deadline is extended to 11/24/2020 for class members to file objections or comments on the settlement. Objections or comments submitted by class members themselves by mail should be submitted to prison authorities for mailing in time to allow receipt by the court by the November 24 deadline. Any other remaining deadlines are extended 91 days. By a separate notice, the clerk must reschedule the fairness hearing for December 4, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 7/27/20. (blb) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
296 STATEMENT filed by ANTONIO L HARRIS. (blb) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
297 NOTICE TO HAVE NAME ADDED filed by BRANDON E GREEN. (blb) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
298 OBJECTION filed by AKMAN FRANCOIS. (blb) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
299 NOTICE OF OBJECTION filed by ADRIAN DEVON LEWIS. (blb) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
294 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING: Fairness Hearing reset for 12/4/2020 10:00 AM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.

Call in number: 571−353−2300 Access code: 034872985#

A separate document will be posted at a later date providing a link to attend by video.

07/29/2020
07/29/2020 07/29/2020
07/29/2020 07/29/2020
07/30/2020
07/30/2020 07/30/2020

s/ Cindy Markley Courtroom Deputy Clerk (ckm) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
300 OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by ANTHONY HARMON. (blb) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
301 OBJECTION filed by WAYNE A. PULA. (blb) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
302 STATEMENT OF OBJECTION filed by JEFFREY P. DAVIDSON. (blb) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
303 OBJECTION filed by VICTOR PESTANO. (blb) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
304 STATEMENT OF OBJECTION OR COMMENT filed by DANIEL LAVENDER. (blb) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
305 LETTER TO BE INCLUDED IN CASE filed by KENAKIL GIBSON. (blb) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
306 OBJECTION filed by ISRAEL CONCEPCION. (blb) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
307 STATEMENT filed by FRANK D BELLAMY JR. (blb) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

 
 Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 1 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Tallahassee Division

WILLIAM DEMLER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No.

MARK S. INCH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

The Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) has effectively stolen

millions of dollars of digital music and books from the prisoners in its custody.

After years of selling these digital media files to FDOC prisoners for listening

during their incarceration, the FDOC recently implemented a statewide policy

forcing prisoners to surrender their digital media players, rescinding access to all of

their digital music and books, and requiring them to re-purchase their digital media

files from the FDOC’s new contractor. This policy has resulted in the confiscation

of the lawfully purchased property of thousands of prisoners, for which the FDOC

has not paid just compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth

Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff,

1

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 2 of 27
William Demler, brings this class action lawsuit to redress the confiscation of his property and the property of thousands of other prisoners that was unlawfully taken by the FDOC pursuant to its unconstitutional policy.
Preliminary Statement 1. Like many state prison systems, the FDOC permits its prisoners to access electronic music files and books. This is not a purely altruistic exercise; the FDOC also profits from the availability of electronic media files to prisoners in its custody. 2. To induce prisoners to purchase files, the FDOC explicitly promised that prisoners would own any purchased files forever. The promise had its intended effect: From 2011 to 2017, the FDOC, through its prior vendor, sold nearly 6.7 million digital media files, at a cost of roughly $11.3 million to prisoners and their families. The FDOC itself realized approximately $1.4 million in commissions on these sales during the same time period. 3. In April 2017, however, the FDOC terminated its contract with its existing vendor, in favor of a competing vendor contract with higher profit margins. But to achieve such profits, the FDOC realized that financial concessions would have to be made. Rather than make those concessions itself, the FDOC decided that its prisoners would pay the price.
2

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 3 of 27
4. As such, and for the sole purpose of making its new vendor contract more profitable for both itself and its vendor, the FDOC instituted and implemented a formal, statewide policy and practice which mandated the confiscation of all digital media files that had been lawfully purchased by current FDOC prisoners, without just compensation, forcing prisoners to re-purchase these songs from the FDOC’s new vendor (the “Multimedia Tablet Policy”).
5. Plaintiff, William Demler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this class action lawsuit against Defendant, Mark S. Inch, in his official capacity as Secretary of the FDOC, challenging the constitutionality of the FDOC’s policy and actions under the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of all such persons.
Jurisdiction and Venue 6. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) in that this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured to Plaintiff and the putative class by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 7. Plaintiff’s claims for relief are predicated, in part, upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state law,
3

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 4 of 27
of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and upon 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
8. Declaratory and injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, as well as Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and § 1391(c), as Defendant does business in this judicial district and division, and many of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district and division.
Parties 10. Plaintiff, William Demler, is an individual currently incarcerated at the FDOC’s South Florida Reception Center, South Unit, at 13910 N.W. 41st Street, Doral, Florida 33178-3014. Mr. Demler is serving a life sentence. 11. Plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative remedies. 12. Defendant, Mark S. Inch, is the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections. In this capacity, he is responsible for the overall operation of the FDOC, including the operation of Florida’s prison facilities, compliance with the U.S. Constitution and federal laws, and the promulgation and enforcement of all
4

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 5 of 27
FDOC rules, regulations, policies and practices, including, but not limited to, the Multimedia Tablet Program.
13. Defendant Inch has statutory authority to implement the relief sought in this Complaint. See Fla. Stat. § 20.315.
14. The actions of Defendant Inch and his agents were performed under color of state law and constitute state action. All staff members mentioned herein were employees or agents of Defendant and acted within the scope of their employment or agency at all relevant times.
15. Defendant Inch is sued in his official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief, and as such may be referred to herein as the “Florida Department of Corrections” or the “FDOC.”
General Factual Allegations History of the FDOC’s Digital Music Player Program 16. Started in 2011 in select facilities, the stated purpose of the FDOC’s Digital Music Player Program was to provide a secure method by which FDOC prisoners could browse, select, purchase and download digital content to specialized digital media (MP3/MP4) players made explicitly for use by inmates in a correctional setting. 17. In or about 2014, the FDOC decided to expand the program, and attempted to secure a single contractor for the provision and operation of its Digital
5

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 6 of 27
Music Player Program statewide. As such, the FDOC invited proposals from qualified vendors that had experience in the provision of large-scale MP3 player program services in correctional or other security and law enforcement settings.
18. As part of this bidding process, both the FDOC’s Invitation to Negotiate Contractual Services, as well as the FDOC’s Request for Proposal for Contractual Services, explicitly stated that compatibility with the FDOC’s prior vendor was a mandatory requirement of the contract, in order to ensure that prisoners would not bear the cost of the transition between vendors:
[T]he proposed system must allow for inmates who currently have a device and/or songs purchased from the current Contractor to transfer and/or obtain updated equipment and/or music compatible with the successful contractor’s Digital Music Player Program. It is the intent of the Department that the implementation of a new Digital Player Program to have little or no financial impact on inmates presently participating in the Department’s current program. 19. In or about 2014, pursuant to these guidelines, the FDOC granted the Digital Music Player Program contract to Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, doing business as Access Corrections. 20. Under the Digital Music Player Program, FDOC prisoners had the ability to purchase one of two specially designed digital media players, for either $99.95 or $119.95 depending on storage capacity, as well as various accessories for the players, including ear buds ($16.00), armbands ($15.00), and screen protectors ($6.00).
6

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 7 of 27
21. Under the Digital Music Player Program, FDOC prisoners also had the ability to purchase digital media files – including music and audiobooks – for use with the specially designed media player, using funds from their inmate accounts. In order to purchase digital media files—available to FDOC prisoners at a cost of $1.70 per file or song—FDOC prisoners were required to purchase blocks of “Prepaid Media Credits,” which required FDOC prisoners to purchase a minimum of five files or songs at a cost of $8.50.
22. FDOC prisoners purchased these blocks of credits using a Florida Department of Corrections MP4 Order Form, which was available at each FDOC institution. These forms were then picked up and processed by Access Corrections’ representatives, on a bi-monthly basis, acting on behalf of, and at the direction of, the FDOC.
23. FDOC prisoners could then use these prepaid credits by securely connecting their digital media player to a kiosk at their FDOC institution, allowing them to access the MP3/MP4 Player Music Library and download available files or songs to a cloud-based library reserved for their use.
24. FDOC prisoners also used the kiosks to transfer their downloaded digital media files from their cloud-based library to their specific digital media player device. While FDOC prisoners could only transfer the number of digital media files that would fit within the memory capacity of his or her digital media
7

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 8 of 27
player, there was no limit on the number of credits, files, or songs that an FDOC prisoner could purchase, own, or maintain in their cloud-based library.
25. In order to utilize the digital media player, FDOC prisoners were also required to connect their players to one of the kiosks at their FDOC institution at regular intervals, in order to extend the device’s Security Timer. If an FDOC prisoner failed to, or was unable to, connect his or her digital media player to a kiosk every thirty (30) days, the digital media player would be automatically disabled, in order to prevent fraudulent use of the device as well as its use outside of the FDOC’s facilities.
26. Pursuant to the FDOC’s rules and regulations, at all relevant times, FDOC prisoners were not permitted to purchase, obtain, or otherwise own any digital media player other than the one offered by, and purchased through, the Digital Music Player Program, nor were FDOC prisoners permitted to purchase, obtain, or otherwise own any digital media files other than those offered by, and purchased through, the Digital Music Player Program.
27. In order to encourage prisoners to purchase digital media players, digital media files, and accessories, the FDOC published numerous advertisements that were posted in various FDOC institutions and provided to prisoners. These advertisements touted various qualities of the digital media players offered by the FDOC, including their memory capacity, operating power, and screen size.
8

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 9 of 27
28. In addition to touting the qualities of the digital media players themselves, at least one widely-distributed advertisement, which appeared on the digital media player order form itself, also touted various qualities of the Digital Music Player Program, including the following representation:
Browse, search and preselect songs from updated music catalogs holding millions of song titles representing a wide array of music genres. You have the ability to purchase and listen to unlimited music utilizing the re-download feature free of charge. Once music is purchased, you’ll always own it! (emphasis supplied). 29. This representation was made by the FDOC to Plaintiff, and all participating FDOC prisoners, to induce them into purchasing digital media files. 30. This advertisement also included information about restrictions that the FDOC placed on the purchase or use of digital media players and/or files purchased through the Digital Music Player Program, pursuant to its internal rules and regulations. Notably, the same advertisement that promised participating FDOC prisoners that they would “always own” the digital media files they had purchased listed only one restriction – that each FDOC prisoner was only permitted to possess one digital media player at any given time. 31. Similarly, the FDOC repeatedly represented to prisoners that they were permitted to delete and re-order digital media files that they had purchased from the cloud-based library, at any time and at no additional cost. In explaining this system, the user guide that accompanied many of the digital media players
9

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 10 of 27
emphasized this re-ordering capability, and explicitly stated that prisoners would never have to purchase the same song or book twice:
You can delete and Re-Order songs as often as you want. You will never be charged for a song that is ordered from the Re-Order Manager. After all, you have already paid for the song once; we don’t think you should ever have to pay for it again. 32. Upon information and belief, none of the materials provided to FDOC prisoners regarding the operation of the Digital Music Player Program suggested or informed participating FDOC prisoners that their digital media file purchases would only be available for use during the span of the FDOC’s contract with Access Corrections, including, but not limited to, notices, advertisements, order forms, and/or user guides. 33. Similarly, upon information and belief, none of the FDOC’s internal rules or regulations ever suggested or informed participating FDOC prisoners that their digital media file purchases would only be available for use during the span of the FDOC’s contract with Access Corrections. 34. Based in no small part on the belief by FDOC prisoners that any purchases they made through the Digital Music Player Program could be accessed at least for the duration of their incarceration with the FDOC, the Digital Music Player Program was a financial success for the FDOC. 35. From 2011 to 2017, FDOC prisoners purchased approximately 6.7 million digital media files through the Digital Music Player Program, at a cost of
10

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 11 of 27
roughly $11.3 million to those prisoners and their families, while the FDOC itself realized approximately $1.4 million in commissions on these sales during the same time period.
36. FDOC prisoners purchased these electronic media files specifically to listen to them in prison. FDOC prisoners do not have Internet access, and many do not have ready access to AM/FM radios. Many do not have jobs or meaningful work assignments. Prison can be a stressful environment, and many prisoners have large amounts of idle time. FDOC prisoners purchased these songs for their use in prison, to alleviate some of the stress and difficulties that come with prison life.
The FDOC’s Transition to the Current Multimedia Tablet Program 37. In April 2017, the FDOC terminated its contract with Access Corrections and entered into a new contract with a competing vendor – Jpay, Inc. – that allows the FDOC to realize even higher profit margins. 38. In order to implement its new contract, the FDOC ended the Digital Music Player Program and began to transition to the current Multimedia Tablet Program. 39. Under the Multimedia Tablet Program, the FDOC offers two multimedia tablets for sale to FDOC prisoners, for either $79.99 or $129.99, depending on the screen size of the tablet. Similar to the previous program, the
11

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 12 of 27
Multimedia Tablet Program also allows prisoners to purchase digital music and other files and listen to those files on their tablets.
40. However, the Multimedia Tablet Program came with a significant downside for all prisoners who had participated in the previous program: they would be required to surrender their digital media players to the FDOC and lose access to all of their digital music and books, regardless of whether they chose to participate in the Multimedia Tablet Program or not.
41. In order to implement the Multimedia Tablet Program, the FDOC first cut off access to those prisoners’ cloud-based libraries in January 2018, preventing them from downloading their own previously purchased music and books.
42. Then, pursuant to the Multimedia Tablet Program, the FDOC has forced, and is forcing, all FDOC prisoners who had participated in the previous Digital Media Player Program to surrender their lawfully purchased digital media players—including all of the digital media files on the player—to the FDOC, on the date that they receive a new tablet under the Multimedia Tablet Program. For those prisoners who chose not to receive a new tablet, the FDOC set a deadline of January 23, 2019 to surrender their digital media player.
43. Pursuant to the Multimedia Tablet Policy, on the date that the FDOC forces a prisoner to surrender their digital media player and files, that prisoner is given the option to mail their digital media player to Access Corrections to have
12

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 13 of 27
the Security Timer removed and mailed to someone outside of prison (for a fee of $24.95), or have the digital media files that were stored on the player transferred to a CD and then mailed to someone outside of prison (for the same fee).1
44. The option to send the player and/or files to someone outside of prison does not cure the problem. As noted above, FDOC prisoners purchased the digital players and music to listen to them and enjoy them while in prison—not at some unspecified time in the future. Further, many FDOC prisoners are serving life sentences (or a term so long it is the functional equivalent of life), or have no family or friends on the outside to whom to send the player or CD. For these prisoners in particular, the option to mail out the player is completely illusory.
45. Moreover, upon information and belief, for digital music files that were stored in prisoners’ cloud-based library but not on their digital media player, there was no option to retrieve them and send them to someone outside of prison; these files were simply gone forever.
46. Despite previous assurances from the FDOC that prisoners would “always own” the digital media files they had purchased under the previous program, the FDOC did not permit prisoners to transfer any of the digital media files that they had purchased under the previous program to the new multimedia
1 It is unclear whether any prisoners have been able to utilize either of these options, however, and whether the FDOC and/or Access Corrections have complied with any such requests.
13

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 14 of 27
tablets, regardless of whether such digital media files were contained on the prisoner’s digital media player itself or in the prisoner’s cloud-based library.
47. If prisoners want to listen to the digital music and books they had under the previous program, they are required to re-purchase them under the current Multimedia Tablet Program.
48. Prisoners were forced to surrender their digital media players, and lost access to their digital files as described above, regardless of whether they chose to additionally purchase a multimedia tablet through the Multimedia Tablet Program, the length of their sentence, or whether they have identifiable family members to whom to send their property.
49. In order to incentivize prisoners to participate in the Multimedia Tablet Program, the FDOC offered the multimedia tablets to all prisoners at a 50% discount for the first 60 days of availability. Prisoners who had purchased a digital media player under the previous program also had the opportunity to obtain a multimedia tablet during the same time period, at either no cost (a $40 discount) or for $50.00 (a $15 discount), depending on the screen size of the tablet, and were also supposed to receive a $10.00 media credit within two weeks of placing their tablet order.
50. These same incentives were offered to all FDOC prisoners who had purchased a digital media player through the previous Digital Media Player
14

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 15 of 27
Program, regardless of the number of digital media files any particular inmate had purchased or the value of such property at the time of its confiscation by the FDOC. The FDOC offered no other compensation for the taking of these digital media player and digital files.
51. Since the implementation of the Multimedia Tablet Program, FDOC prisoners have written hundreds of grievances and administrative appeals complaining about the arbitrary confiscation of their property without compensation. The FDOC, through its Bureau of Contract Management, has denied all such grievances and appeals.
52. In response to the outpouring of grievances and appeals, the FDOC developed standard response language. That language acknowledges the significant investment that FDOC prisoners and their families have made in the Digital Media Player Program, stating, among other things, “we understand that some inmates have made a significant investment in music with their current digital music players,” and “we are aware that family members over the years have provided funds for their loved one to add music to their current MP3 player.”
53. Despite these acknowledgements, the FDOC has denied all such grievances and appeals and continues to move forward with the Multimedia Tablet Program without modification.
15

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 16 of 27
54. Moreover, the FDOC has even explicitly admitted that the confiscation of lawfully purchased property without compensation was done to allow the FDOC and its new vendor to realize additional profits, stating in several grievance responses that the confiscation of all prisoners’ digital media files is “necessary” because “the download of content purchased from one vendor to another vendor’s device would negate the new vendor’s ability to be compensated for their services.”
55. In addition, the FDOC’s standard grievance response language simply tells prisoners that their loss of property will be good for them in the long run, stating, “It is unfortunate that the music cannot be transferred, however, we hope that overtime [sic] the family and the inmate will see the added value of the new program.”
Factual Allegations Regarding Plaintiff William Demler 56. Plaintiff, William Demler, is a current FDOC prisoner who has been, and continues to be, deprived of his constitutional rights as a result of the FDOC’s Multimedia Tablet Program. 57. In 2012, while incarcerated at the FDOC’s Hamilton Correctional Institution in Jasper, Florida, Mr. Demler purchased a digital media player through the FDOC’s Digital Media Player Program for $99.95.
16

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 17 of 27
58. Having viewed the FDOC’s advertisements for its Digital Media Player Program, Mr. Demler believed that he would “always own” any digital media files purchased by him through the Digital Media Player Program and for use with his digital media player.
59. Relying on this belief, Mr. Demler subsequently purchased approximately 335 digital media files through the FDOC’s Digital Media Player Program. Mr. Demler spent $569.50 on the purchase of these digital media files, excluding additional costs for the digital media player, as well as ear buds and other necessary accessories.
60. Then, in 2017, despite assurances from the FDOC that he would “always own” the digital media files he had purchased, the FDOC informed Mr. Demler not only that it was terminating the Digital Media Player Program and replacing it with the Multimedia Tablet Program, but also that he would not be permitted to retain any of his digital media files, regardless of whether those files were contained on his digital media player or in his cloud-based library and even if he chose to purchase a tablet through the FDOC’s new program, and would instead be forced to surrender his property to the FDOC’s custody.
61. FDOC informed Mr. Demler that he would now only be permitted to keep the digital media player and/or files he had purchased through the Digital Media Player Program until the earlier of a) his receipt of a multimedia tablet
17

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 18 of 27
through the Multimedia Tablet Program, if he chose to purchase one, or b) January 23, 2019.
62. While the FDOC informed Mr. Demler that he could have his digital media player and/or files mailed to a family member for an additional fee, Mr. Demler is serving a life sentence, and the only family with whom Mr. Demler has any contact is a 92-year old uncle, who has no use for Mr. Demler’s digital music player and/or files.
63. As such, and with no other options at his disposal, in October 2018, Mr. Demler surrendered his digital media player and all of his digital media files to the FDOC’s custody, pursuant to the Multimedia Tablet Program. While Mr. Demler accepted the smaller-sized multimedia tablet at no cost, he was completely deprived of the use and enjoyment of all of his lawfully purchased songs and digital media files. The money he had invested in his digital media files has been effectively stolen from him.
Class Action Allegations 64. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a class of all persons similarly situated. 65. Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the
18

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 19 of 27
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and is a member of, and seeks to represent, a class of persons and entities (“Plaintiff Class”) defined as:
“All FDOC prisoners whose digital media files were taken, or will be taken, pursuant to the Multimedia Tablet Program.” 66. Class Size (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)): Plaintiff avers that the proposed class is in excess of 50 persons. The class size is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 67. Commonality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)): There are questions of law and fact common to all members of the Plaintiff Class. Common material questions of fact and law include, but are not limited to, the following: a. the scope and nature of Defendant’s Multimedia Tablet Program; b. whether Defendant offered just compensation to inmates whose property
was confiscated pursuant to the Multimedia Tablet Program; c. whether the implementation and enforcement of the Multimedia Tablet
Program violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; d. whether the implementation and enforcement of the Multimedia Tablet Program violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; e. whether Plaintiff and the other members of the class are entitled to declaratory relief; and
19

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 20 of 27
f. whether Plaintiff and the other members of the class are entitled to injunctive relief.
68. Typicality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)): The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of all members of the class. The named Plaintiff has suffered injuries similar in kind and degree to the injuries suffered by the members of the class. The Defendant has acted the same with respect to the named Plaintiff and all class members. The named Plaintiff makes the same claims and seeks the same relief for himself and for all class members.
69. Fair and Adequate Representation (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)): The named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class members. Plaintiff is committed to this cause, will litigate it vigorously, and is aware of the fiduciary duties of a class representative. Plaintiff’s interests are consistent with and not antagonistic to the interests of the other class members. Plaintiff has a strong personal interest in the outcome of this action and has retained experienced class counsel to represent him and the other class members.
70. Class Counsel is experienced in civil rights and class action litigation on behalf of prisoners and has successfully litigated such claims.
71. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2): Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the members of the class, thereby making
20

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 21 of 27
appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
CAUSES OF ACTION Count 1
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution via 42 U.S.C. § 1983
72. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein by reference all averments set forth in all paragraphs preceding the Causes of Action section, above.
73. Plaintiff’s claim for relief on this Count One is predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States, and upon 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
74. Plaintiff and the putative class have a constitutionally protected and fundamental right to property in their purchased digital media files.
75. Pursuant to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, made applicable to the states and their agencies through the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, private property shall not be taken without just compensation.
21

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 22 of 27
76. Through the implementation of the Multimedia Tablet Program, Defendant FDOC has violated the Takings Clause by taking the private property of prisoners who purchased digital media files without just compensation.
77. The implementation and enforcement of the Multimedia Tablet Program is facially unconstitutional under the Takings Clause, as it requires the taking of private property of prisoners without just compensation.
78. Plaintiff and the putative class purchased digital media files through the Digital Media Player Program with funds from their inmate accounts, and at the time of purchase the digital media files were authorized property for Plaintiff and the putative class to possess.
79. Defendant’s Multimedia Tablet Program has invaded and interfered with Plaintiff’s and the putative class’s legally protected property interests.
80. Defendant has deprived Plaintiff and the putative class of their possessory right, use, and enjoyment of the digital media files they purchased through the Digital Media Player Program, without just compensation, through the implementation and enforcement of its Multimedia Tablet Program.
81. The Multimedia Tablet Program constituted a direct government appropriation of private property.
82. Defendant’s Multimedia Tablet Program has or will result in the permanent deprivation of Plaintiff and the putative class’s possessory rights, use,
22

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 23 of 27
and enjoyment of the digital media files they purchased through the Digital Media Player Program.
83. Defendant’s Multimedia Tablet Program was not implemented to address any improper use of the digital media files purchased through the Digital Media Player Program by Plaintiff and the putative class, and was not implemented to address any security concern.
84. Plaintiff and the putative class are entitled to and have not been provided with just compensation for the taking.
85. Plaintiff and the putative class have no adequate state court remedies to redress this taking.
86. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s official policy and actions, Plaintiff and the putative have suffered, and will continue to suffer, from violation of their rights under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. These harms will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
Count 2 Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Substantive Due Process
via 42 U.S.C. §1983 87. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein by reference all averments set forth in all paragraphs preceding the Causes of Action section, above. 88. Plaintiff’s claim for relief on this Count Two is predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of
23

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 24 of 27
state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States, and upon 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
89. Plaintiff and the putative class have a constitutionally-protected and fundamental right to property in their purchased digital media files.
90. Plaintiff and the putative class purchased digital media files through the Digital Media Player Program with funds from their inmate accounts, and at the time of purchase the digital media files were authorized property for Plaintiff and the putative class to possess. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the putative class have a right to the digital media files through the Digital Media Player Program.
91. Defendant has deprived Plaintiff and the putative class of their possessory right, use, and enjoyment of the digital media files they purchased through the Digital Media Player Program.
92. Defendant’s Multimedia Tablet Program was not implemented to address any improper use of the digital media files purchased through the Digital Media Player Program by Plaintiff and the putative class.
93. Defendant’s implementation and enforcement of the Multimedia Tablet Program was, and is, arbitrary and irrational under color of law.
24

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 25 of 27
94. The Multimedia Tablet Program was implemented in Defendant’s legislative capacity, as the Program has broad-ranging impacts for large segments of the FDOC population, rather than being directed at a particular person.
95. The Multimedia Tablet Program is arbitrary and capricious, does not bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, has no rational basis, was undertaken for an improper motive, and is therefore an invalid exercise of the police power.
96. The Multimedia Tablet Program is facially unconstitutional under the substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
97. The deprivation of Plaintiff’s and the putative class’s property was the result of an abuse of governmental power.
98. These actions are essentially theft and breach of contract, and as such, shock the conscience.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant and requests an order:
A. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), appointing Plaintiff William Demler as the representative of the
25

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 26 of 27
members of the class defined above, and appointing the undersigned as counsel for the members of the class; B. finding and declaring that Defendant has violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution through its implementation of the Multimedia Tablet Program; C. finding and declaring that Defendant has violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by violating the substantive due process rights of Plaintiff and the putative class through its implementation of the Multimedia Tablet Program; D. granting Plaintiff and the putative class preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that will restore their access while in prison to the digital media files they purchased through the Digital Media Player Program; E. awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and F. granting such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
26

Case 4:19-cv-00094-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/19/19 Page 27 of 27
Respectfully submitted,
Shawn A. Heller, Esq. Florida Bar No. 46346 shawn@sjlawcollective.com Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Florida Bar No. 43994 josh@sjlawcollective.com
Social Justice Law Collective, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin FL 34698 Tel: (305) 323-6433
Dante P. Trevisani, Esq. Florida Bar No. 72912 dtrevisani@floridajusticeinstitute.org Ray Taseff, Esq. Florida Bar No. 352500 rtaseff@floridajusticeinstitute.org
Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 100 S.E. 2nd Street 3750 Miami Tower Miami, Florida 33131-2309 305-358-2081 305-358-0910 (FAX)
By: s/Joshua A. Glickman Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
27

 
 Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 38 Filed 05/30/19 Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIAM DEMLER, Plaintiff,
v. MARK S. INCH,
Defendant. ___________________________/

CASE NO. 4:19cv94-RH-GRJ

ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS

The plaintiff is a prisoner who asserts that, unless enjoined, the Department of Corrections will soon deny him and other prisoners the ability to listen to music they bought and the Department said they would be able to continue to use throughout their periods of incarceration. The defendant Secretary of the Department responded to the complaint by filing a motion for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). The order of May 3, 2109 denied the motion. The Secretary now has moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and failure to join a required party. The supporting memorandum also asserts the complaint should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-GRJ

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 38 Filed 05/30/19 Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
Under the plain language of Rule 12(h)(1)(A), the Secretary waived the venue defense by failing to include it in the motion for a more definite statement. See 5C Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1388 (3d ed. Apr. 2019 update). The Secretary did not waive the defenses of failure to state a claim and failure to join a required party, but Rule 12(g)(2) prohibits the Secretary from filing a second Rule 12 motion raising those defenses, except as allowed by Rule 12(h)(2) or (3).
Rule 12(h)(3) allows a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but here the Secretary’s motion is unfounded; this is a colorable claim arising under federal law over which the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Rules 12(h)(2) and (3) do not allow a party to move to dismiss for failure to state a claim or failure to join a required party after having omitted the defense from a first Rule 12 motion responding to the same pleading. In any event, here the complaint states a claim and does not fail to join a required party.
At least under an unpublished Eleventh Circuit decision, the Secretary waived the exhaustion defense by failing to include it in the first Rule 12 motion. See Brooks v. Warden, 706 F. App’x 965, 968-70 (11th Cir. 2017). In any event, the plaintiff apparently exhausted his remedies under the Department of Corrections’ grievance process. The Secretary has not asserted the contrary. Instead, the Secretary asserts the plaintiff should have filed a petition to amend the
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-GRJ

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 38 Filed 05/30/19 Page 3 of 3
Page 3 of 3
rule allowing the Department to deprive the plaintiff of his music. The assertion is unfounded. A prisoner must exhaust the remedies available under the grievance process, but a prisoner need not initiate a rulemaking proceeding. See, e.g., Torres v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 4:15cv464-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2017), aff’d on other grounds, 742 F. App’x 403 (11th Cir. 2018).
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: The motion to dismiss, ECF No. 31, is denied. SO ORDERED on May 30, 2019.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-GRJ

 
 Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 64 Filed 09/25/19 Page 1 of 9
Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIAM DEMLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CASE NO. 4:19cv94-RH-GRJ

MARK S. INCH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This case arises from a policy change in the Florida Department of Corrections. Inmates bought media players and paid to permanently download music, with the Department’s full approval, but the policy change prevents the inmates from listening to the music. The plaintiff is an inmate who has moved to certify a class of inmates who downloaded music. The defendant Secretary of the Department has moved for summary judgment on the merits. This order denies both the motion to certify a class and the motion for summary judgment.

Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-MJF

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 64 Filed 09/25/19 Page 2 of 9
Page 2 of 9
I The plaintiff William Demler paid to acquire a media player and to download numerous songs for play while incarcerated. The seller was Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, which did business as Access Corrections. Keefe entered into these transactions with the full approval of the Department of Corrections, which apparently received a percentage of the sales price on each transaction. Answer, ECF No. 42 at 2-3 ¶ 3. In state-court litigation, the Department apparently described Keefe as its “partner” in this enterprise. See ECF No. 56-2 at 2. In the written “terms of sale” that the Department says were provided to inmates, Keefe described the transactions as “Permanent Downloads,” said Keefe could change the terms in its sole discretion, and said any changes would “apply to any purchases made after such changes are posted.” ECF No. 56-1 at 1. The terms said Keefe could block access to a Permanent Download but that if Keefe did so, the inmate’s account would be credited. Id. at 2. The terms said the Department could block access to “one or more” Permanent Downloads with no resulting credit to an inmate’s account. Id. The terms did not say Keefe or the Department could entirely abandon the program or could require inmates to surrender their media players.
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-MJF

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 64 Filed 09/25/19 Page 3 of 9
Page 3 of 9
Mr. Demler alleges he paid for downloads based on representations attributable to the Department that he would be able to listen to the downloads during his entire tenure in the Department. The record does not establish one way or the other whether any such representations were in fact made.
The Department announced a policy change requiring inmates to surrender their media players but allowing the media players to be sent to relatives or others outside Department facilities. The Department entered into a replacement program with a different vendor using more advanced technology. The Department offered each inmate with an active Keefe media player a substitute, upgraded media player with the new vendor. And the Department offered each such inmate an allowance to pay for downloads compatible with the new player. Keefe downloads cannot be played on the new, upgraded media players, so under the Department’s new policy, an inmate cannot access any “Permanent Download” purchased from Keefe.
Mr. Demler filed this action against the Department’s Secretary in his official capacity. For convenience, this order uses “the Department” to refer to the Department, the Secretary, or both. Mr. Demler asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution. He demands injunctive relief but not an award of damages—an omission that makes sense because the Department would have Eleventh Amendment immunity from any damages claim. Mr. Demler has not named Keefe as a defendant.
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-MJF

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 64 Filed 09/25/19 Page 4 of 9
Page 4 of 9
Mr. Demler has moved to certify a class of all Department inmates who will be unable to access their downloads because of the new policy. The Department has moved for summary judgment, asserting that denying access to the downloads is constitutional. The Department does not assert, as a basis for summary judgment, that no misrepresentations were made.
II Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class certification. The party who moves to certify a class has the burden of establishing that the Rule 23 elements are met. See, e.g., Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1265 (11th Cir. 2009). The Rule 23(a) elements are commonly referred to as “numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.” Babineau v. Fed. Express Corp., 576 F.3d 1183, 1190 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1187-88 (11th Cir. 2003)). Mr. Demler’s class-certification motion fails on numerosity. A class must be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “[W]hile there is no fixed numerosity rule, ‘generally less than twentyone is inadequate, more than forty adequate, with numbers between varying according to other factors.’ ” Cox v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986). “[A] plaintiff need not show the precise number of members in the class.” Evans v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 696 F.2d 925, 930 (11th Cir. 1983).
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-MJF

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 64 Filed 09/25/19 Page 5 of 9
Page 5 of 9
Mr. Demler submitted a list of 19,386 inmates who possessed a Keefe media player as part of this program. Some of these inmates have been released, but there are surely still thousands of inmates impacted by the policy change. Even so, many—probably most—cannot present the same claim as Mr. Demler. For an inmate who will receive an upgraded media player and credits that will allow acquisition of as many or more downloads than previously owned, any constitutional claim is almost surely unfounded. And even if not unfounded, any such claim is much different from Mr. Demler’s claim, making Mr. Demler’s claim not typical and Mr. Demler not an adequate representative.
In short, the Department’s policy change, when coupled with the replacement media players and credits available to affected inmates, will make some inmates winners and some losers. The record gives no information at all on the number in each category. A class cannot properly be certified unless there are enough losers to meet the numerosity requirement. And while one might reasonably guess that the number is sufficient, a district court cannot properly certify a class based on such a guess. See, e.g., Vega, 564 F.3d at 1267-68 (holding the district court erred in assuming numerosity for a class of Florida members based only on the large number of nationwide members).
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-MJF

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 64 Filed 09/25/19 Page 6 of 9
Page 6 of 9
III The Department’s summary-judgment motion is based on the proposition that correctional authorities can properly require inmates to relinquish possession of property they were previously allowed to possess. Thus, the Department says, inmates can be required to send property out of a facility to relatives or other custodians. The proposition is unassailable as far as it goes, and not surprisingly, the Department cites a number of cases so holding. See, e.g., Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Green, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019-20 (9th Cir. 2011); Searcy v. Simmons, 299 F.3d 1220, 1229 (10th Cir. 2002); Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 998 (10th Cir. 1991); Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Cohen, 581 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1093-94 (D. Nev. 2008); Pryor-El v. Kelly, 892 F. Supp. 261, 270-71 (D.D.C. 1995); Stringer v. DeRobertis, 541 F. Supp. 605, 607-08 (N.D. Ill. 1982); Sorrentino v. Godinez, No. 12C6757, 2013 WL 5497244 at *4-7 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2013). But the Department’s motion ignores a critical part of Mr. Demler’s claim. The media player and downloads were not just property that Mr. Demler acquired on his own. Here the Department participated in sale of the property to inmates, represented to inmates that they would be allowed to use the property in the facility permanently, and took a cut of the sales price. Or so Mr. Demler asserts. None of the Department’s cited cases involve similar facts.
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-MJF

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 64 Filed 09/25/19 Page 7 of 9
Page 7 of 9
The closest is Sorrentino. An Illinois facility allowed inmates to buy typewriters and second fans from the commissary but then changed course and prohibited possession of these items. The facility allowed inmates to send the prohibited items to family members or others outside the facility. The district court dismissed a proposed class action, concluding that this was not a taking that required just compensation.
Sorrentino is a nonbinding district court decision. But it is not on point anyway. There are three differences between Mr. Demler’s claims and those involved in Sorrentino and the other cases cited by the Department.
First, Mr. Demler alleges the Department affirmatively represented that he would be able to possess his MP3 player and music permanently—or at least that Keefe made this representation and the Department is responsible for it.
Second, this case involves not just physical property—a typewriter, fan, or MP3 player, for example—but a license to play music that is not otherwise owned. When a typewriter is sent out of a facility, it is still owned and can be not only used but sold. The inmate can recover the value of the property. Downloaded music of the kind at issue, in contrast, cannot be sold; the right to use the music is all there is, and the right is not transferable. Takings law has long recognized the difference between depriving an owner of all, rather than just some, of a property’s value. See, e.g., Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 560
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-MJF

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 64 Filed 09/25/19 Page 8 of 9
Page 8 of 9
U.S. 703, 713 (2010) (while discussing “general principles” of takings jurisprudence, stating that a taking may occur when the state “deprives [an owner] of all economically beneficial use of his property”) (citing Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019 (1992)).
Third, the record suggests that, contrary to its argument, the Department’s new policy will not allow Mr. Demler to send all the disputed property to relatives or others outside the facility. See Demler Decl., ECF No. 40-1 at 7; see also Compl., ECF No. 1 at 14. The MP3 player stores some of Mr. Demler’s purchased music. But the MP3 player’s capacity is limited. Some of Mr. Demler’s purchased music is stored not on the MP3 player but on the cloud. Only Mr. Demler can access that music. Under the Department’s new policy, the music on the cloud is gone—not available to Mr. Demler or anyone else. Taking Mr. Demler’s interest in purchased music he was told would be permanently available, without just compensation, if that is what occurred, may indeed be unconstitutional. The Department has cited no authority to the contrary.
To be sure, the Department denies anything was misrepresented. But the Department has not presented evidence on this and has not sought summary judgment on this basis. At least to this point, whether the Department made or is otherwise responsible for misrepresentations as alleged must be viewed as a genuinely disputed material fact. The terms of sale, if Mr. Demler agreed to them,
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-MJF

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 64 Filed 09/25/19 Page 9 of 9
Page 9 of 9
may authorize what the Department proposes to do. But the record does not establish whether the terms are binding on Mr. Demler, nor does the record shed any additional light on whether the terms mean what the Department says they mean.
IV For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The plaintiff’s class-certification motion, ECF No. 40, is denied. 2. The defendant’s summary-judgment motion, ECF No. 54, is denied. 3. The plaintiff’s motion to defer a summary-judgment ruling or to extend the deadline to respond, ECF No. 58, is denied as moot. SO ORDERED on September 25, 2019.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-MJF

 
 Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 133 Filed 03/02/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Tallahassee Division

WILLIAM DEMLER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No. 4:19-cv-00094-RH/GRJ

MARK S. INCH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests leave to

file an amendment to the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and in support thereof states:

1. On February 10, 2020, the Court entered its Order Granting Leave to

Amend the Complaint, Allowing Depositions, And Extending the Mediation

Deadline, ECF No. 118 (“Order”).

2. Pursuant to the Order, Plaintiff is permitted to seek leave to add

additional new named plaintiffs.

3. As such, Plaintiff is seeking leave to add Michael Gisi and Wayne Pula

as additional new named plaintiffs, and requests that the amendment, attached hereto

as Exhibit 1, be incorporated into the Complaint.

1

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 133 Filed 03/02/20 Page 2 of 4
4. The additional allegations have been added as lettered subparagraphs to paragraphs 10 and 63. Plaintiff has elected to use this format in order to keep the paragraph numbers consistent with Defendant’s Answer, ECF No. 42.
5. Plaintiff also seeks an amendment to the Complaint by interlineation with respect to the use of the term Plaintiff and the phrase Plaintiff, William Demler where they are used in conjunction with allegations that are not specific to Mr. Demler. Where either is used generally, and not in relation to allegations specific to Mr. Demler, Plaintiff requests that they be read as Plaintiffs (plural), and any grammatical issues be corrected accordingly.
6. Plaintiff further requests that Mr. Gisi and Mr. Pula be substituted for Mr. Demler as class representatives with respect to the outstanding request for class certification referenced in the Order.
Certificate of Counsel. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B) of the Northern District of Florida, counsel for Plaintiff has conferred with counsel for Defendant, and Defendant’s counsel has indicated that it has no objection to this Motion or the Proposed Amendment with the understanding that Defendant reserves all of the arguments raised in opposition to the original Motion to Amend Order Denying Class Certification, ECF No. 101, that have not been addressed by the Court, any arguments that contraindicate certification based upon the nuances of the newly named Plaintiffs, and all other objections noted in the Court’s Order, ECF No. 118.
2

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 133 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 4
Certificate of Word Limit. Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Local Rule 7.1(F), this
motion contains 300 words.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests, for good cause shown, the
Court to enter an Order incorporating the proposed amendment into the Complaint,
amending the Complaint by interlineation, as described in paragraph 5, above, and
revising Plaintiff’s request for class certification, as described in paragraph 6, above.
Respectfully submitted,
Shawn A. Heller, Esq. Florida Bar No. 46346 shawn@sjlawcollective.com Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Florida Bar No. 43994 josh@sjlawcollective.com
Social Justice Law Collective, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin FL 34698 Tel: (202) 709-5744
Dante P. Trevisani, Esq. Florida Bar No. 72912 dtrevisani@floridajusticeinstitute.org Ray Taseff, Esq. Florida Bar No. 352500 rtaseff@floridajusticeinstitute.org
Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 100 S.E. 2nd Street 3750 Miami Tower Miami, Florida 33131-2309 305-358-2081
3

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 133 Filed 03/02/20 Page 4 of 4
305-358-0910 (FAX) By: s/Shawn A. Heller
Shawn A. Heller, Esq. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, on this 2nd day of March 2020, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all attorneys of record.
By: s/Shawn A. Heller Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
.
4

 
 Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 170 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Tallahassee Division

WILLIAM DEMLER, MICHAEL GISI and WAYNE PULA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No. 4:19-cv-00094-RH/GRJ

MARK S. INCH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections,

Defendant. /

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND AUTHORIZING NOTICE TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary

Approval of Class Action Settlement and incorporated Memorandum of Law (“Joint

Motion”). After reviewing and considering the Joint Motion and the proposed Class

Action Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”), the Court orders as follows:

1. The Agreement has been reached on behalf of the following Class,

which has been certified by the Court pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure (ECF No. 163):

All current Florida Department of Corrections prisoners whose digital media files were taken, or will be taken, pursuant to the Department’s termination of the MP3 program (the “Digital Music Player Program”), and who purchased more than 75 songs through that program.
1

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 170 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 4
2. The Court previously found that this class certification is appropriate because (a) the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical; (b) there are common questions of law and fact that predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members; (c) Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class; (d) Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class; and (e) class treatment is appropriate where, as here, “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
3. The Court now finds that the settlement of this action, as embodied in the terms of the Agreement, is preliminarily approved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Court finds that the terms of the Agreement were the result of substantial discovery, were the product of arm’s length negotiations between experienced counsel, and are fair, reasonable, and adequate and well within the range of reasonableness for preliminary settlement approval.
4. The Agreement is incorporated by reference into this Order and is hereby preliminarily adopted as the order of this Court.
5. The Agreement provides that members of the Class be given notice of the pendency of this action and the proposed settlement by posting the Notice of
2

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 170 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 4
Proposed Settlement (attached to the Agreement as Exhibit C) in a prominent area in every dormitory and law library of every FDOC institution for 60 days, providing a copy of the Notice individually to any inmate who is not housed in a common dormitory setting, and publishing copies of the Notice on the FDOC’s public website, in a publication or publications of FDOC’s choosing that is/are made available to FDOC inmates, and, if technologically feasible to do so, on the currently permitted JPay Tablets in standard and accessible formats for Class members with disabilities. The Notice is to be posted, provided, and published in English and Spanish. The Court finds that the notice provisions in the Agreement, including the Notice of Proposed Settlement are reasonable, that they constitute due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice, and that they satisfy the requirements of due process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Notice of Proposed Settlement is thus approved and adopted. The Court orders that the parties provide the specified notice to the Class within fourteen (14) days following entry of this Order.
6. In compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, Defendant shall serve written notice of the proposed settlement on the U.S. Attorney General and the Attorney General of Florida.
7. All proceedings in this action are stayed until further order of the Court, except as may be necessary to implement the terms of the settlement.
3

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 170 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 4
8. The Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the action to consider all further matters arising out of or connected with the settlement, including the administration and enforcement of the Agreement.
9. Any Class member who wishes to submit a Statement of Objection or Comment and/or Notice of Intention to Appear shall file such a Statement and/or Notice with this Court before August 18, 2020, or be forever barred from objecting to or commenting on the settlement.
10. The Final Fairness Hearing, identified in the Notice of Proposed Settlement, is scheduled for August 25, 2020, and will be conducted telephonically. At the final hearing, the Court will determine whether the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved.
SO ORDERED on May 26, 2020. s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
4

 
 Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 288 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIAM DEMLER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 4:19cv94-RH-GRJ

MARK S. INCH,

Defendant. ___________________________/

ORDER AMENDING THE CLASS DEFINITION, REQUIRING NOTICE, AND EXTENDING DEADLINES

The class representatives have moved to amend the class definition to account for changed circumstances. The motion shows good cause for the change. This order grants the motion, approves and indeed requires supplemental notice of the change, and extends the schedule. The order also makes clear that class members must submit objections or comments in writing; they will be allowed to speak at the hearing only if they have submitted timely objections or comments in writing and only to the extent feasible and consistent with prison officials’ reasonable management of their facilities. Due process is afforded by the opportunity to submit objections or comments in writing; an opportunity to speak at the hearing is not required.

Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-GRJ

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 288 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
IT IS ORDERED: 1. The class representatives’ motion, ECF No. 267, to amend the class definition is granted. 2. The class definition is amended to substitute “100” in place of “75,” so that the class now consists of:
All current Florida Department of Corrections prisoners whose digital media files were taken, or will be taken, pursuant to the Department’s termination of the MP3 program, and who purchased more than 100 songs through that program. 3. Supplemental notice must be given substantially in the form of ECF No. 267-1. And notice must be given to the Attorney General of the United States as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715. 4. The deadline is extended to November 24, 2020 for class members to file objections or comments on the settlement. Objections or comments submitted by class members themselves by mail should be submitted to prison authorities for mailing in time to allow receipt by the court by the November 24 deadline. 5. Any other remaining deadlines are extended 91 days. 6. By a separate notice, the clerk must reschedule the fairness hearing for December 4, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will be conducted by video and audio, with class counsel participating by video, other attorneys, if any, participating by video, and class members participating by video or audio only to the extent feasible and consistent with prison officials’ reasonable management
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-GRJ

Case 4:19-cv-00094-RH-GRJ Document 288 Filed 07/27/20 Page 3 of 3
Page 3 of 3
of their facilities. To be eligible to speak at the hearing, a class member must submit objections or comments in writing by the deadline in paragraph 4. For class members who have filed timely objections or comments and have indicated they wish to speak, the clerk of court will attempt to assist with logistics—but class members will be able to connect only to the extent consistent with prison officials’ reasonable management of their facilities, and some may not be able to connect at all.
SO ORDERED on July 27, 2020. s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:19cv94-RH-GRJ