Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 553

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ACLU of Indiana – Indiana University )

School of Law – Indianapolis Chapter; )

and AMANDA PERDUE, on their own )

behalf and on behalf of a class of those )

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE )

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW

)

EXAMINERS, in their official capacities, )

)

Defendants.

)

No. 1:09-cv-842 WTL-JMS CLASS ACTION –COMPLAINT

Second Amende d Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

I. Introduction

1. The Indiana bar application which must be completed for those who wish to sit

for the Indiana bar examination asks a number of intrusive questions concerning whether

the applicant has ever been diagnosed with certain specific mental health disorders,

whether the applicant has since the age of sixteen (16) been diagnosed with any mental,

emotional or nervous disorders, whether the applicant has any mental, emotional, or

nervous disorder or condition that, if untreated, could affect the ability to practice law,

and whether treatment is being received. If an applicant answers affirmatively to any of

the questions he or she must disclose detailed information about her treatment, s

ign

blanket releases for all mental health treatment and must submit to further evaluation and

assessment as ordered by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (“JLAP”), a

program of the Indiana Supreme Court.

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 554

The ACLU of Indiana – Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis Chapter

(“ACLU-Student Chapter”) has members who will soon be applying for the Indiana bar

and who will have to answer in the affirmative to a number of the above intrusive

questions and do not wish to do so. Amanda Perdue is a member of the Illinois b ar who

does not meet the established requirements for admission on a foreign license pursuant to

Indiana law but meets all the educational qualifications for taking the Indiana bar

examination. Ms. Perdue will also have to answer in the affirmative to one of the above

intrusive questions because she has been diagnosed with an emotional disorder that in no

way affects her ability to practice law.

Ms. Perdue and the members of the ACLU – Student Chapter who must answer

affirmatively to the questions are persons with a disability as that term is defined in the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), and, the ACLU and Ms. Perdue,

on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly sit uated, object to the unnecessary

inquiries into their mental health histories, the consideration of any information stemming

from these unnecessary inquir ies, and the placement of additional burdens on individuals

with disabilities during the course of the process of admission to the Indian a bar. The

actions of defendants violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Jurisdiction, venue, cause of action 2. This Court has jurisdiction of this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '' 1331 and 1343.

3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. ' 1391.

4.

Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. '' 2201, 2202 and by Rule 57 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. This action is brought, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, to redress the deprivation,

2

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 555
under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. Parties 6. The ACLU –Student Chapter is the duly organized and constitute d chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and is comprised of law students at the Indiana School of Law - Indianapolis. 7. Amanda Perdue is an Indiana resident. 8. The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners (“Members”), sued in their official capacities, are the ten duly appo inted members of the Indiana bar who comprise the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners. As public officials they are designated by their official title rather than by their names pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 17(d). Class action allegations 9. The ACLU-Student Chapter brings this action on behalf of its members and Ms. Perdue brings this action on her own behalf. Additionally, both plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a class of those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class is defined as:
all persons who will file an application to take the Indiana bar examination for which any of the following are true:
-they have been diagnosed with or treated for bi -polar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder -they have been diagnosed, since the age of 16 until the present, with or treated for any mental, emotional or nervous disorder. -they have a mental, emotional or nervous condition or impairment which if untreated could affect their ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner
3

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 556
10. The requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met
here. Specifically:
a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The exact size of the class is currently unknown, however, it is believed to be significant. In 2008, 745 persons took the Indiana bar examinations given in February and July. In 2007, the number was 816. In 2006 the number was 795. The National Alliance on Mental Il lness estimates that one in four adults experience a mental health disorder in a given year. http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_Mental_Illness&Template=/ ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=53155. And, a law review article reports that a four year study of law students at the University of Maryland found that 15% of the students sought counseling and nearly all were diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness. Jon Bauer, The Character of the Questions and the Fitness of the Process: Mental Health, Bar Admissions and the Americans with Disabilities Act , 49 UCLA L. REV. 93, 105, n. 36 (2001) (citing Faith Dickerson, Psychological Counseling for Law Students: One Law School’s Experience, 37 J. LEGAL EDUC. 82, 83-84 (1987)).
b. There are questions of law or fa ct common to the class - whether the inquiries into mental health history, the consideration of any information stemming from these unnecessary inquires, as well as the placement of additional burdens on individuals with disabilities in the course of the p rocess of admission to the Indiana bar violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
c. The claims of the representative parties meet the typicality requirements of Rule 23(a)(3).
d. The representative party will fairly and adequately protect the intere sts of the class.
11. The further requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
are met in this cause in that the defendant s, at all times, ha ve acted and ha ve refused to
act in a manner generally applicable to the class, thereby m aking final injunctive and
declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.
12. Counsel for plaintiff s is an appropriate and adequate attorney to represent the
class and should be appointed as attorney for the class pursuant to Rule 23(g), Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
4

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 557

Legal background

13. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) , 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq, has as

its purpose:

(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

(2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

(3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards establis hed in this chapter on behalf of individuals with disabilities; and

(4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discriminatio n faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.

42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 (b).

14. The ADA provides, at 42 U.S.C. § 12132, that:

Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a

disability shall, by reason of such disability, be exc

luded from

participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or

activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such

entity.

15. A public entity includes, “any department, agency, special purpose district, or

other instrumentality of a State or States or local government.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B).

16. The ADA further specifies that:

The term “qualified individual with a disability” means an individual with

a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications

to rules,

policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or

transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services,

meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or

the participation in prog rams or activities provided by a public entity

42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).

5

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 558
17. Under the ADA, The term “disability” means, with respect to an individual -(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of s uch individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).
42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). 18. Recent amendments to the ADA define “regarding as having such an impairment” as used 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C) as follows:
For purposes of paragraph (1)(C): (A) An individual meets the requirement of “being regarded as having such an impairment” if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. (B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitor y impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less. 42 U.S.C.A. § 12102 (3). 19. The ADA calls for a broad construction of its terms noting, among other things, “[t]he definition of disability in this chapter shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under this chapter, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A). 20. Indiana law provides that the Indiana Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction to . . . admit attorneys to practice law in all courts of the state.” I ND. CODE 33-24-1-2. 21. Pursuant to this authority, the Indiana Supreme Court has created the State Board
6

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 559
of Law Examiners (”Board”), a ten-person board made up of members of the Indiana bar.
Admission and Discipline Rule 9.
22. The Board is responsible for, among other things, creating the forms for
application for admission to the Indiana bar, assessing the character and fitness of
applicants for the bar, supervising the bi -annual bar examination, and cert ifying to the
Supreme Court the applicants who have passed the examination and further
recommending to the Court that the bar applicants are eligible for admission. Admission
and Discipline Rules 11, 12, 17, 18.
23. Admission Rule 12, Section 2, discusses the fact that an applicant seeking bar
admission must be of “good moral character and fitness to practice law.” The Rule notes
further that:
[t]he applicant shall have the burden of proving that he or she possesses the requisite good moral character and fitn ess to practice law. The applicant has the absolute duty to inform the Board with full candor of any facts which bear, even remotely, upon the question of the applicant's character and fitness and general qualifications to practice law, which obligation continues from the date of application to the time of admission, and includes the obligation to promptly and to fully inform the Board of any such facts occurring or discovered prior to admission. The term “good moral character” includes, but is not limited to, the qualities of honesty, fairness, candor, trustworthiness, observance of fiduciary responsibility, and of the laws of this State and of the United States, and a respect for the rights of other persons and things, and the judicial process. Anyone who has been convicted of a felony prima facie shall be deemed lacking the requisite of good moral character as defined in this section. The term “fitness” includes, but is not limited to, the physical and mental suitability of the applicant to practice law in Indiana. In satisfying the requirements of good moral character and fitness, applicants should be persons whose record of conduct justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts and others with respect to the professional duties owed to them, and whos e record demonstrates the qualities of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability. In the determination of good moral character and fitness, relevant considerations may include, but are not limited to the following: unlawful conduct; academic misc onduct; making of false statements, including omissions; misconduct in employment; acts involving
7

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 560
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; abuse of legal process; neglect of financial responsibilities; violation of an order of a court; evidence of mental or emotional instability; evidence of drug or alcohol dependency; denial of admission to the bar in another jurisdiction on character and fitness grounds; and disciplinary action by a lawyer disciplinary agency or other professional disciplinary agen cy of any jurisdiction.
24. The Indiana Supreme Court has also created JLAP.
The purpose of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program is assisting impaired members in recovery; educating the bench and bar; and reducing the potential harm caused by impairmen t to the individual, the public, the profession, and the legal system. Through the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, the Committee will provide assistance to judges, lawyer and law students who suffer from physical or mental disabilities that result from disease, chemical dependency, mental health problems or age that impair their ability to practice; and will support other programs designed to increase awareness about the problems of impairment among lawyers and judges.
Admission and Discipline Rule 31, Section 2.
25. The Board of Law Examines ha s authority to refer persons to JLAP “for
assessment or treatment.” Admission and Discipline Rule 31, Section 8(c).
Factual allegations
26. Pursuant to authority granted by the Indiana Supreme Court the Members hav e
prescribed the Application for Admission Upon Examination to Practice Law which must
be completed in order for an applicant to sit for the Indiana bar.
27. A copy of the current application is attached to this complaint.
28. Questions 20-26 concern themselves wi th questions about drug and alcohol
addiction as well as questions about the applicant’s mental health.
29. These questions are introduced by a preamble that assures the applicant that the
information provided is confidential.
30. The preamble further notes that “ [t]he mere fact of treatment for mental health
8

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 561

problems or addictions is not, in itself, a basis on which the applicant is ordinarily denied

admission.”

31. The preamble also states: “[t]he State Board of Law Examiners may deny

certification to applicants whos e ability to function is impaired in a manner relevant to

the practice of law or to applicants who fail to carry their burden of proving that they are

possessed of good moral character and fitness.”

32. Question 22 on the bar application asks “[h]ave you bee n diagnosed with or have

you been treated for bi -polar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic

disorder?”

33. Question 23 on the bar application asks “[f]rom the age of 16 years to the present,

have you been diagnosed with or treated for any

mental, emotional or nervous

disorders?”

34. Question 24 on the bar application asks “[d]o you have any condition or

impairment (including, but not limited to, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental,

emotional, or nervous disorder or condition) which in any way currently affects, or if

untreated could affect, your ability to practice law in a competent and professional

manner?”

35. Question 25 of the bar application asks “ If your Answer to Question 24 is Yes,

are the limitations or impairments caused by your mental health condition or substance

abuse problem reduced or ameliorated because you receive ongoing treatment (with or

without medication) or because you participate in a monitoring program?”

36. If an affirmative answer is given to any of the above questio ns the bar applicant is

instructed to complete form B1 which is a form where the applicant must include the

9

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 562

dates of any treatment and the names and complete addresses of treatment providers

along with a “[d]etailed description of the type of problem

condition, impairment,

diagnosis, treatment and/or monitoring program.”

37. The applicant must make as many copies of Form B1 as “necessary to report each

instance on a separate form.”

38. The application notes that “[u]pon review of the information you provided in

Form B1 the State Board of Law Examiners will make a determination whether further

information or medical records are needed to further assess you good moral character and

fitness to practice law in Indiana. If such information or medical records are needed, you

will be notified.”

39. The application form contains a release form authorizing any and all persons to

release information to the Board of law Examiners as requested.

40. Question 26 of the application asks: “Have you ever raised the . . . issue of a

mental, emotional, nervous or behavioral disorder or condition as a defense, mitigation,

or an explanation for your actions in the co urse of any administrative or judicial

proceeding or investigation, any inquiry or other proceeding, or any proposed termination

by an educational institution, employer, government agency, professional organization or

licensing authority?”

41. If an affirmative answer is given the applicant must “ provide a thorough written

factual explanation [on] Form B-1. Include pertinent names, add resses, dates and

references to records, as appropriate.”

42. On information and belief, if an applicant answers in the affirmative to the

questions contained in the application’s paragraphs 23, 24, 25, or 26, the applicant may

10

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 563

be referred to JLAP for further evaluation.

43. If the applicant answers in the affirmative to the questions

contained in

application paragraphs 23, 24, or 25 the applicant may be required to produce all medical

records concerning past treatment, even if the applicant has no impairment that is relevant

to the applicant’s ability to become a member of the Indiana bar.

44. The ACLU – Student Chapter is a recognized and established chapter of law

students Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis who, through the chapter,

belong to the ACLU of Indiana.

45. The ACLU of Indiana is the Indiana affiliate of the national ACLU and has as its

purpose insuring the constitutional and civil rights of Indiana residents including the

rights of those with disabilities.

46. The ACLU of Indiana has more than 4,500 m embers and a number of student and

other chapters including the chapter at Indiana University Law School – Indianapolis.

47. The ACLU – Student Chapter currently has members who intend to apply for the

Indiana bar upon graduation from law school.

48. A number of t hese members will have to respond affirmatively to questions 22 or

23 on the bar application and/or will respond affirmatively to question 24 because they

have a mental health condition although it is fully treated and ameliorated by and through

treatment.

49. The members will have to complete Form B -1 and will have to sign general

releases so that there medical records may be released and reviewed by the Members or

JLAP.

50. The members will be subject to further questioning and investigation of their

11

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 564

mental conditions by the Members or JLAP.

51. The members and the ACLU -Student Chapter object to these intrusive questions

which do not bear on the applicants’ current fitness and character to practice law.

52. A large percentage of the student population at the Indiana Unive rsity School of

Law – Indianapolis will take the Indiana bar examination.

53. Plaintiff Perdue is a graduate of an Indiana law school and is a member in good

standing of the Illinois bar. She has not been a member of the Illinois bar long enough to

be able to become a member of the Indiana bar without examination. She has never been

subject to discipline as an attorney.

54. Ms. Perdue has been diagnosed in the past by mental health professionals as

suffering from anxiety disorder and post traumatic stress disorde r. She has been in

mental health counseling and has consistently been able to function, both in law school

and after law school, at a high level.

55. Ms. Perdue applied for the Indiana bar in the fall of 2008. This application has

been withdrawn and she has no application pending at the current time.

56. Ms. Perdue completed the application for the Indiana bar and answered in the

affirmative to questions 23 and 26. However, her answer to question 26 was erroneous as

she noted in her explanation on the application . The application has been revised since

then. However, questions 22-26 remain virtually identical.

57. Upon answering these questions the Members determined that she had to contact

JLAP for a thorough review of her mental health records and a

further evaluation, if

necessary.

58. Ms. Perdue presented letters from mental health professionals who treated her

12

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 565
who specified that she was able to function at a high level and was fit to practice law and of high moral character. 59. Nevertheless, the Members determined tha t no determination of character and fitness could be made until after JLAP had completed its evaluation. 60. Ms. Perdue withdrew her application for the bar before any determination was made as to her character and fitness. 61. The affected members of the ACLU – Student Chapter, Ms. Perdue, and the other members of the putative class, merely because they have been diagnosed with mental, emotional or nervous disorders in the past, and/or merely because they are currently receiving treatment for these disorders which ameliorates any negative effect, are required to be subjected to unnecessary and intrusive inquiries into their mental health histories, as well as having this mental health history considered as relevant to their current ability to practice law, a nd having additional burdens imposed upon them, such as referrals to JLAP and the requirement that they comply with JLAP’s requirements. 62. The affected members of the ACLU – Student Chapter, Ms. Perdue and the members of the putative class are subjected to unneces sary inquiries and burdens merely because they have been diagnosed in the past with mental, emotional, or nervous disorders which have no bearing on their current fitness to practice law. 63. The affected members of the ACLU – Student Chapter, Ms. Perdue and the members of the putative class have a disability as defined by ADA inasmuch as, at the very least, they have been subjected to discrimination prohibited by the ADA because of perceived mental impairments. 64. Ms. Perdue, a member of the Illinois bar, is cl early a qualified individual with a
13

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 566
disability in that she meets the essential requirements to be deemed to have the good character and fitness to sit for the Indiana bar examination. 65. The members of the ACLU – Student Chapter who will have to answer affirmatively to one or more of the intrusive questions noted above on the Indiana bar application are qualified individuals with a disability. 66. These members will be applying to take the Indiana bar examination in the future. 67. Ms. Perdue intends to apply to take the Indiana bar examination as soon as she may do so without being subjected to the unlawful and intrusive questions concerning her mental health history. She would like to take the bar examination in July of 2010 if possible. 68. The ACLU – Student Chapter members and Ms. Perdue will be required to complete the application for the Indiana bar. 69. Ms. Perdue does not want to subject herself again to answering the bar application’s intrusive questions and the ACLU – Student Chapter members do not wish to answer th e questions, but they will have to do so to be able to sit for the bar examination. 70. Ms. Perdue will have to answer in the affirmati ve to question 23. She will not answer in the affirmative to question 22, 24, 25 or 26. 71. The ACLU – Student Chapter members and Ms. Perdue do not wa nt to have to complete Form B-1, produce all of their medical records, and respond to invasive review and questioning by JLAP, but they will have to do to be able to sit for the bar examination. 72. The ACLU – Student Chapter members a nd Ms. Perdue do not want their past
14

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 567
mental health history which, inasmuch as it does not affect their behavior, conduct or character, has no relevance to the character and fitness inquiry, to be considered by the Members. 73. The Members together as the Board of Law Examiners constitute a public entity under the ADA. At all times defendants have acted under color of state law. 74. The actions of defendants are causing ACLU – Student Chapter members, Ms. Perdue, and the putative class irreparable harm for which the re is no adequate remedy at law. Legal claim 75. To the extent that defendants are subjecting the members of the ACLU – Student Chapter, Ms. Perdue, and the putative class to different and elevated burdens solely because of their past histories of mental, emo tional, or nervous disorders, the defendants are discriminating against qualified individuals with a disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Request for relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs requests that this Court: a. Accept jurisdiction of this cause. b. Certify this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with the class as defined above. c. Enter a declaratory judgment that defendants have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act as specified above. d. Enter a preliminary injunction, later to be made permanent, preventing defendants from asking the ACLU – Law School chapter members, Ms. Perdue, and the putative class any questions or inquiries that do not conc ern behavior but which solely concern past or present mental health diagnoses or treatment and preventing defendants from discriminating against the ACLU – Law School chapter members, Ms. Perdue and the putative class because of their past or
15

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 82 Filed 01/27/10 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 568

present mental health diagnoses or treatment.
e. Award plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
f. Award all other proper relief.
/s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk No. 6777-49 ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 ext. 104 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu- in.org
Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this 26th of January, 2009, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of this Court. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system and the p arties may access this filing through the Court's system.

Anthony W. Overholt FROST BROWN TODD LLC aoverholt@fbtlaw.com

Darren A. Craig FROST BROWN TODD LLC dcraig@fbtlaw.com

/s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk Attorney at Law

16

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

AMANDA PERDUE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE )

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW

)

EXAMINERS,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Cause No. 1:09-cv-842-WTL-JMS

ENTRY ON AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification1 (Docket No. 41). The Motion is fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART, the Motion for the reasons, and to the extent, set forth below.
I. RULE 23 STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class actions. Rule 23 requires a two-step analysis to determine whether it is appropriate to certify a particular class. First, the Plaintiffs must satisfy all four requirements of Rule 23(a): (1) numerosity; (2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation. Williams v. Chartwell Fin. Servs., Ltd., 204 F.3d 748, 760 (7th Cir. 2000). Second, the action must also satisfy one of the conditions of Rule 23(b). Id. The Court has “‘broad discretion to determine whether certification of a class-action lawsuit is appropriate,’” Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 794 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 629 (7th Cir. 2001)), and class certification decisions are reviewed using

1 The Court notes that the filing of the amended motion rendered the Plaintiffs’ initial motion to certify moot.

the abuse of discretion standard. Id. II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Amanda Perdue is an Illinois attorney who intends to sit for the Indiana bar examination (“Bar”). Perdue was previously diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder and has received treatment for both conditions. In 2008, Perdue applied to take the February Bar. As part of the Bar application, she was required to provide information about her physical and mental health. Because she answered “yes” in response to a question about her mental health, the Board of Law Examiners (“BLE”) requested additional information from Perdue and referred her to the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mental health review. Instead of consenting to this review and providing the requested information, Perdue withdrew her application. Perdue, who was later joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana – Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis Chapter (“ACLU”), filed this suit, to prevent the BLE from inquiring about Bar applicants’ mental health.
The Plaintiffs have now filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as:
[A]ll persons who will file an application to take the Indiana bar examination for which any of the following are true:
-they have been diagnosed with or treated for bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder -they have been diagnosed since the age of 16 until the present, with or treated for any mental, emotional[,] or nervous disorder -they have a mental, emotional[,] or nervous condition or impairment which if untreated could affect their ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner. Pls.’ Br. at 2. The Plaintiffs note that this class is defined “in terms of the objectionable
2

questions [of the Bar application] numbers 22, 23[,] and 24,” id., and they assert that it satisfies the requirements of Rule 23.
III. DISCUSSION Not surprisingly, the Defendants disagree and argue that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that class certification is appropriate. See Retired Chicago Police Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d 584, 596 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing Trotter v. Klincar, 748 F.2d 1177, 1184 (7th Cir. 1984)) (“[T]he party seeking class certification assumes the burden of demonstrating that certification is appropriate.”). A. The ACLU. As an initial matter, the Defendants vigorously argue that the ACLU is not an appropriate class representative. However, much of the Defendants’ argument against the ACLU’s role as class representative appears to be an allegation that the ACLU lacks standing. The Plaintiffs’ Reply does not address this issue. See Reply at 9 (stating only that “the Student Chapter has standing”). Because the Court is presently unable to determine whether the ACLU has standing, the parties are ordered to brief this issue. Within 21 days of the date of this Entry the ACLU shall file a brief in support of its standing. The Defendants shall then have 14 days to respond to the ACLU’s brief. No reply is necessary. Until the Court determines that the ACLU has standing, the Court will not address whether it is an appropriate class representative. Accordingly, the Amended Motion for Class Certification is DENIED as to the ACLU. If, after the standing issue is resolved, the ACLU still wishes to serve as a class representative, then it may file an appropriate motion at that time. However, the Court will treat the current Motion as one brought solely by Plaintiff Perdue.
3

B. Identification of the class. Before this class can be certified, Perdue must show that the class is “sufficiently definite to warrant class certification.” Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir. 2006). “‘An identifiable class exists if its members can be ascertained by reference to objective criteria. A class description is insufficient, however, if membership is contingent on the prospective member’s state of mind.’” Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 172 F.R.D. 351, 357 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (quoting Gomez v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ., 117 F.R.D. 394, 397 (N.D. Ill. 1987)). The Seventh Circuit has emphasized that classes “defined by the activities of the defendants” are generally sufficiently definite to satisfy this requirement. Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 565 F.2d 975, 987 (7th Cir. 1977). Classes whose membership is “contingent on the state of mind of the prospective class members,” are not definite enough to survive the class certification stage of litigation. Id. In the instant case, the class is defined by reference to three questions on the Bar application. Individuals who answer “yes” to any of these three questions would be class members. Individuals who answer “no” to the questions cannot be class members. Although the reason why a person would have to answer “yes” to one of the questions may vary from individual to individual, this does not render the class indefinite or contingent on members’ states of mind. Accordingly, the class definite satisfies the preliminary requirement for class certification. C. The Rule 23(a) requirements. Turning now to the express requirements of Rule 23, Perdue must first show that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members in impracticable.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(1).
4

Although “plaintiffs are not required to specify the exact number of persons in the class,” they “cannot rely on conclusory allegations that joinder is impractical or on speculation as to the size of the class in order to prove numerosity.” Marcial v. Coronet Ins. Co., 880 F.2d 954, 957 (7th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted); see also Arreola, 546 F.3d at 798.
The Seventh Circuit has not provided specific guidance about when a putative class is large enough to satisfy the numerosity requirement. However, in Arreola, the court assumed that fourteen individuals would be insufficient. Arreola, 546 F.3d at 798. Similarly, in Pruitt v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 925, 926 (7th Cir. 2006), the court noted that “joinder of fewer than 40 workers . . . would be practical” so class certification was inappropriate.
In the instant case, the Plaintiffs submitted an affidavit which avers that there are “at least three members” of the ACLU who would have to answer affirmatively to the complained of questions on the Bar application. Meier Supplemental Aff. at 1. Standing alone, this would certainly not justify class certification. However, the Plaintiffs have gone one step further. They have requested (and per the Magistrate Judge’s January 8, 2010, Order are entitled to) aggregate data from the past two Bar exams, identifying the number of individuals who have answered affirmatively to the challenged questions. The Plaintiffs will presumably use this data to extrapolate forward and estimate the size of the class. Assuming that discovery reveals that there are, as the Plaintiffs claim, approximately ninety-five individuals each year who must answer the challenged questions in the affirmative,2 the numerosity requirement would be satisfied.
2 The Court arrived at this figure by multiplying the number of Bar applicants for the past three years (2006 through 2008) by fifteen percent, which the Plaintiffs claim is the percentage of University of Maryland law students who sought counseling for mental illness. According to the Plaintiffs, nearly all of the students in the University of Maryland study were diagnosed with mental illness. Accepting this premise, this figures are: 2006 = 635 applicants, 95.25 affected;
5

However, if discovery reveals that the actual number of affected individuals is substantially smaller than the Plaintiffs’ estimation, the Court will, of course, revisit this issue following an appropriate motion.
The second requirement of Rule 23(a) is the presence of “questions of law or fact common to the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(2). “‘A common nucleus of operative fact is usually enough to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).’” Keele v. Wexler , 149 F.3d 589, 594 (7th Cir. 1998) (quoting Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 1992)). “Common nuclei of fact are typically manifest where . . . the defendants have engaged in standardized conduct towards members of the proposed class.” Id.
The Defendants claim that the proposed class lacks commonality, especially if the ACLU is allowed to participate in the litigation. This argument is not persuasive. Under the proposed class definition, the class will be composed of individuals who have to answer several Bar application questions in the affirmative. Because all of the class members will suffer their alleged injury based on the Defendants’ standardized conduct, the Plaintiffs have illustrated a common nuclei of fact. In addition, the fact that the putative class members may have different conditions or illnesses does not destroy commonality. The Court disagrees with the Defendants’ assertion that “the nature of the disability and existence of a class member’s disability would require a series of ‘mini-trials’ for each proposed class member.” Id. (quoting Ind. State Employment Ass’n, Inc. v. Ind. State Highway Comm’n, 78 F.R.D. 724, 725 (S.D. Ind. 1978)).
2007 = 656 applicants, 98.4 affected; and 2008 = 615 applicants, 92.25 affected. Averaging the number of affected individuals and rounding, as there cannot be a partial applicant, the Court concluded that approximately 95 individuals may answer the challenged questions in the affirmative.
6

Factual variations among class members do not defeat commonality. See id. Because the Plaintiffs have illustrated that there is a common nuclei of operative fact, they have satisfied the commonality requirement.
The third requirement is typicality – “the claim or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(3). “The question of typicality in Rule 23(a)(3) is closely related to the preceding question of commonality.” Rosario, 963 F.2d at 1018. The Seventh Circuit has stated that “a ‘plaintiff’s claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and his or her claims are based on the same legal theory.’” Id. (quoting De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 713 F.2d 225, 232 (7th Cir. 1983)). The Defendants’ only argument regarding this element of Rule 23(a) is that allowing the ACLU to serve as a class representative would destroy typicality. As noted above, the Court declines to address whether the ACLU is an appropriate class representative at this juncture. In addition, Plaintiff Perdue’s complaint is about “the objectionable questions concerning applicants’ mental health and the subsequent burdens imposed by the [Defendants].” Pls.’ Br. at 13. The putative class members will suffer the same harm from the same source, and thus, their claim would be identical to Perdue’s. Accordingly, the typicality requirement is met.
The fourth and final requirement of Rule 23(a) is that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4). “A class is not fairly and adequately represented if class members have antagonistic or conflicting claims.” Rosario, 963 F.2d at 1018. In Retired Chicago Police Ass’n, the court noted that “adequacy of representation is composed of two parts: ‘the adequacy of the named plaintiff’s counsel, and the
7

adequacy of representation provided in protect the different, separate, and distinct interest’ of the class members.” Retired Chicago Police Ass’n, 7 F.3d at 598 (quoting Sec’y of Labor v. Fitzsimmons, 805 F.2d 682, 697 (7th Cir. 1986)). In the instant case, with Perdue serving as the class representative, the putative class members’ interests are identical to her’s. Thus, her claims are neither antagonistic to, nor conflict with, the claims of the class as a whole. As to counsel’s representation, the Plaintiffs aver, and the Defendants do not dispute, that the class will be “represented by counsel who is skilled and experienced in this type of litigation.” Pls.’ Br. at 14. Accordingly, the Court finds that the fourth requirement is met and Plaintiff Perdue is an appropriate class representative.
D. Rule 23(b)(2). Having satisfied the four requirements of Rule 23(a), Perdue has not fully met her burden. She must also satisfy one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). Here, Perdue claims that she satisfies Rule 23(b)(2) which allows a class action to be maintained if “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.” In the instant case the Defendants have taken allegedly discriminatory action against the entire class. Accordingly, if the Plaintiffs prevail on the merits, injunctive relief will be appropriate. The Defendants seem to concede this point, noting only that “[t]he requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are not satisfied if the [ACLU] Student Chapter is deemed a class representative.” Resp. at 9 (emphasis added). Of course, the Court is not addressing what happens if the ACLU is deemed a class representative in this Entry. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, as well
8

as the relevant case law, the Court believes that the class definition is drafted in a way that will allow identification of class members. Because the Plaintiffs seek only declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiff Perdue has satisfied Rule 23(b)(2). Accordingly, she has met the requirements for class certification.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification (Docket No. 41) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Perdue. Because the Court is unable to determine whether the ACLU has standing, the Court cannot find that the ACLU is an appropriate class representative. Accordingly, the Amended Motion for Class Certification is DENIED as to the ACLU. Within 21 days of the date of this Entry the ACLU shall file a brief in support of its standing. The Defendants shall have 14 days to respond, and no reply is necessary. If the Court finds that the ACLU has standing, and if the organization still wishes to be a class representative, then the ACLU may file an appropriate motion at that time. SO ORDERED: 01/29/2010

Copies to:
Darren Andrew Craig Frost Brown Todd LLC dcraig@fbtlaw.com
Kenneth J. Falk ACLU of Indiana kfalk@aclu-in.org

_______________________________ Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
9

Anthony W. Overholt Frost Brown Todd LLC aoverholt@fbtlaw.com
10

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 60 Filed 12/08/09 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 403

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JANE DOE et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE )

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW

)

EXAMINERS,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Cause No. 1:09-cv-842-WTL-JMS

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS The parties are before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Docket No. 27). After the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (Docket No. 38), which did nothing to alter the issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court shall treat the Motion to Dismiss as affecting the Amended Complaint. The motion is fully briefed, and the Court being duly advised, DENIES the Defendants’ motion for the reasons stated herein.
I. LEGAL STANDARD In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), “the district court is not bound to accept as true the allegations of the complaint which tend to establish jurisdiction where a party properly raises a factual question concerning the jurisdiction of the district court to proceed with the action.” Grafon Corp. v. Hausermann, 602 F.2d 781, 783 (7th Cir. 1979). Where a factual dispute regarding jurisdiction is raised, “[t]he district court may properly look beyond the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence has been submitted on the

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 60 Filed 12/08/09 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 404
issue to determine whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists.” Id. Absent a factual dispute regarding jurisdiction, the district court applies the same standard as is used when reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).1 Under this standard the Court must take the facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff. Under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must contain only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and there is no need for detailed factual allegations. However, the statement must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” and the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Pisciotta v. Old Nat. Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
II. BACKGROUND The Indiana Bar application (“Application”) requests extensive information from applicants about their character and fitness to practice law. Part of the Application requires applicants to disclose information about their mental and physical health. Applicants who answer “yes” in response to any question about their mental or physical health must provide information about treatment they have received. The Application also contains a release form that authorizes the disclosure of medical records or other information to the Board of Law Examiners (“BLE”).
Jane Doe is a member of the Illinois Bar who intends to sit for the Indiana Bar Exam. She was previously diagnosed with a mental illness and has received treatment for this illness. It is undisputed that Doe’s mental illness has not prevented her from functioning at a high level
1 In the instant case there is no factual dispute regarding jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court shall apply the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.
2

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 60 Filed 12/08/09 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 405
either in law school or in practice in Illinois. In 2008, Doe applied to take the February Bar Exam in Indiana. Doe truthfully disclosed her history of mental illness. As a result, the BLE referred Doe to the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, for a mental health review. The BLE also requested that Doe submit medical records related to her past mental health treatment. Instead of consenting to this review and providing the requested information, Doe withdrew her application. Doe, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana – Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis Chapter, filed this suit, which seeks to prevent the BLE from inquiring about their mental health. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the BLE has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and an injunction preventing the BLE from asking the Plaintiffs about their mental health diagnoses or treatment.
III. DISCUSSION In their brief the Defendants raise three arguments in favor of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction: (1) Eleventh Amendment Immunity; (2) the Younger Abstention Doctrine; and (3) the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. The Defendants’ latter two arguments – under the Younger Doctrine and the RookerFeldman Doctrine – are not convincing. The gist of the Younger Doctrine is that federal courts are forbidden from staying or enjoining pending state court proceedings except in special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971). The Younger Doctrine does not apply to the instant case because there is no pending state court proceeding. The Plaintiffs have not yet submitted applications to sit for the Indiana Bar Exam, accordingly, there is nothing pending in state court to trigger the Younger Abstention Doctrine. The Defendants’ argument under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is also not persuasive.
3

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 60 Filed 12/08/09 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 406
The Rooker-Feldman “doctrine derives from two Supreme Court cases . . . and provides that lower federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to review state court civil decisions.” Edwards v. Illinois Board of Admissions to Bar, 261 F.3d 723, 728 (7th Cir. 2001). The RookerFeldman Doctrine does not apply to the instant case because there is no state court civil decision under review. There is nothing pending before the BLE and there has been no state court judgment entered.
The Defendants’ most convincing argument is under the Eleventh Amendment, which states: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. Thus, the Eleventh Amendment “shields States from suit in federal court without their consent.” Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 39 (1994). Congress may abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity if it: (1) unequivocally expresses its intent to abrogate that immunity and (2) acts pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 517 (2004).
Although the ADA purports to abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, see 42 U.S.C. § 12202 (2006), the Supreme Court has held that Congress did not validly abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity, and thus, private individuals cannot recover money damages from a State for violation of Title I of the ADA. See Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360, 374 n.9 (2001). However, following Garrett, private individuals can still bring suit for injunctive relief under Title I of the ADA. See id. at 374 n.9.
The Plaintiffs in the instant case bring suit under Title II of the ADA. Garrett did not address whether plaintiffs can sue for prospective relief under Title II of the ADA. However, a
4

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 60 Filed 12/08/09 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 407
Seventh Circuit opinion, Bruggeman ex rel. Bruggeman v. Blagojevich, 324 F.3d 906, 912 (7th Cir. 2003), states that “Ex Parte Young, authorizes, not withstanding the Eleventh Amendment, suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials who . . . are sued in their official capacity.” Because the Plaintiffs in this case have sued the members of the BLE in their official capacity, and because the Plaintiffs seek only prospective injunctive relief, they have stated a valid claim. Accordingly, the Defendants Motion to Dismiss is denied.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 27) is DENIED. SO ORDERED: 12/08/2009

Copies to:
Donald G. Banta Indiana Office of the Attorney General donald.banta@atg.in.gov
Laura Lee Bowker Office of the Indiana Attorney General laura.bowker@atg.in.gov
Kenneth J. Falk ACLU of Indiana kfalk@aclu-in.org

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

5

 
 CCasaese1:10:90-9c-vc-v0-0804824-2T-TWWPP-M-MJDJD DDocoucmumenetn1t 819-31 FFileilded10/90/62/71/11 PPagaege11ofo2f 2PPagaegIeDID#:#2: 1251746

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ACLU of Indiana – Indiana University )

School of Law – Indianapolis Chapter, )

et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE )

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW

)

EXAMINERS, in their official capacities, )

)

Defendants.

)

No. 1:09-cv-842 TWP-MJD

JUDGMENT

Comes now the Court, following its Entry on Cross Motions for Summary Judgm ent

(Doc. No. 188), and enters the following Findings and Judgment.

It is found and declared that, consistent with this Court’s Entr y on Cross Motions for

Summary Judgment, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgm ent is GRANTED wit h respect to

Question 23 of the Bar application, but DENIED with respect to Questions 22, 24 and 25 and the

Board of Law Exam iners’ motion for summar y judgment is GRANTED with respect to

Questions 22, 24 and 25, but DENIED with respect to Question 23 of the Bar application.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defenda nts are perm anently enjoined and shall

immediately cease utilizing Question 23 on the Indiana Bar applicati on. Given that application s

for the February, 2012, Bar application are alrea dy being completed by applicants and received

by the Board, the Court ORDERS further that:

1. The current Question 23 shall be removed from the application for the July, 2012,

Bar examination.

CCasaese1:10:90-9c-vc-v0-0804824-2T-TWWPP-M-MJDJD DDocoucmumenetn1t 819-31 FFileilded10/90/62/71/11 PPagaege22ofo2f 2PPagaegIeDID#:#2: 1251847

2. The Board of Law Exa miners shall immediately take steps to remove question 23 from the application for the February, 2012, bar examination and to the extent that applications have been, or will be rece ived, with Question 23 com pleted, the Board is enjoined to not consider the answers to the question in any respect. IT IS FUR THER ORDERED that the tim e within which plaintiffs are to submit any claims for attorneys’ fees or costs is extended, pursuant to Rule 54(d)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, until sixty (60) days from the date of this Judgment.

10/06/2011 ___________ Date

_________________________________________

Judge,

__U_n_i_te_d_S_t_at_e_s _D_is_tr_ic_t_C_o_u_rt____

Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge

United States District Court

Southern District of Indiana

cc:
Kenneth J. Falk ACLU of Indiana kfalk@aclu-in.org
Anthony W. Overholt FROST BROWN TODD LLC aoverholt@fbtlaw.com
Darren A. Craig FROST BROWN TODD LLC dcraig@fbtlaw.com

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 219 Filed 06/21/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 2287

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ACLU of Indiana – Indiana University

)

School of Law – Indianapolis Chapter, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE

)

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW

)

EXAMINERS, in their official capacities,

)

)

Defendants.

)

No. 1:09-cv-00842 TWP-MJD

ORDER

The parties, having filed their Joint Notice Concerning Settlement of Attorneys’ Fee and

Costs Claims, and the Court having read the Notice and being duly advised finds that all pending

motions in this case have been withdrawn and all pending matters have been fully resolved.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is closed.

_0_6_/_2_1_/2_0_1_2_ Date
cc:
Kenneth J. Falk ACLU of Indiana kfalk@aclu-in.org

______J_u_d_g_e_, _U_n_i_te_d__S__tHa__to_e_n_s__.D__Ti__sa__tnr__iyc_a_t__CW___o_a_ul_r_tt_o__n__P__r__a__t_t_,__J_u__d__g__e_____ United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Anthony W. Overholt FROST BROWN TODD LLC aoverholt@fbtlaw.com

Darren A. Craig FROST BROWN TODD LLC dcraig@fbtlaw.com

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

f• ,.
- 7 Fiit2: I 6

JANE DOE, on her own behalf and

)

on behalf of a class of those similarly

)

situated,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE )

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW

)

EXAMINERS, in their official capacities, )

)

Defendants.

)

No.
lfi'08·CV· 0 842 WTL-TAB
CLASS ACTION

Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

I. Introduction

1. Jane Doe is a member of the Illinois bar who does not meet the established

requirements for admission on a foreign license pursuant to Indiana law but meets all the

educational qualifications for taking the Indiana bar examination. However, the

application asks a number of intrusive questions concerning whether the applicant has

ever been diagnosed with certain specific mental health disorders, whether the applicant

has since the age of sixteen (16) been diagnosed with any mental, emotional or nervous

disorders, whether the applicant has any mental, emotional, or nervous disorder or

condition that, if untreated, could affect her ability to practice law, and whether treatment

is being received. If an applicant answers affirmatively to any of the questions she must

disclose detailed information about her treatment, sign blanket releases for all mental

health treatment and must submit to further evaluation and assessment as ordered by the

Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program ("JLAP"), a program of the Indiana Supreme

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2

Court. Jane Doe has been diagnosed with an emotional disorder that in no way affects

her ability to practice law. She is a person with a disability as that term is defined in the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 121 02(2), and, on her own behalf and on

behalf of those similarly situated, objects to the unnecessary inquiries into her mental

health history, the consideration of any information stemming from these unnecessary

inquiries, and the placement of additional burdens on individuals with disabilities during

the course of the process of admission to the Indiana bar. The actions of defendants

violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Jurisdiction, venue, cause of action

2. This Court has jurisdiction of this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

4.

Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and by Rule 57 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. This action is brought, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to redress the deprivation,

under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and

pursuant to Title II ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.

Parties

6. Jane Doe, a pseudonym, is a permanent resident of Porter County, Indiana.

7. The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners

("Members''), sued in their official capacities, are the ten duly appointed members of the

Indiana bar who comprise the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners. As public officials

they are designated by their official title rather than by their names pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.

17(d).

2

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3
Class action allegations
8. Jane Doe brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of those
similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
9. The class is defined as:
all persons who will file an application to take the Indiana bar examination for which any of the following are true:
-they have been diagnosed with or treated for bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder
-they have been diagnosed, since the age of 16 until the present, with or treated for any mental, emotional or nervous disorder.
-they have a mental, emotional or nervous condition or impairment which if untreated could affect their ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner
10. The requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met
here. Specifically:
a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The exact size of the class is currently unknown, however, it is believed to be significant. In 2008, 745 persons took the Indiana bar examinations given in February and July. In 2007, the number was 816. In 2006 the number was 795. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that one in four adults experience a mental health disorder in a given year. http://www .nami .org/Template. cfin?Section=About_Mental_Illness&Template=/ ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfin&ContentiD=53155. And, a law review article reports that a four year study oflaw students at the University of Maryland found that 15% of the students sought counseling and nearly all were diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness. Jon Bauer, The Character of the Questions and the Fitness of the Process: Mental Health. Bar Admissions and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 49 UCLA L. REV. 93, 105, n. 36 (2001) (citing Faith Dickerson, Psychological Counseling for Law Students: One Law School's Experience, 37 J. LEGAL EmJC. 82,83-84 (1987)).
b. There are questions of law or fact common to the class whether the inquiries into mental health history, the consideration of any information stemming from these unnecessary inquires, as well as the placement of additional
3

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4
burdens on individuals with disabilities in the course of the process of admission to the Indiana bar violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. c. The claims of the representative party are typical of those of the class. d. The representative party will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 11. The further requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met in this cause in that the defendants, at all times, have acted and have refused to act in a manner generally applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. 12. Counsel for plaintiff is an appropriate and adequate attorney to represent the class and should be appointed as attorney for the class pursuant to Rule 23{g), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Legal background 13. The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq, has as its purpose: (1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities; (2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities; (3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established in this chapter on behalf of individuals with disabilities; and (4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities. 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 (b). 14. The ADA provides, at 42 U.S.C. § 12132, that:
4

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5
Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
15. A public entity includes, "any department, agency, special purpose district, or
other instrumentality of a State or States or local government." 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(8).
16. The ADA further specifies that:
The term "qualified individual with a disability" means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity
42 u.s.c. § 12131(2).
17. Under the ADA,
The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual--
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).
42 u.s.c. § 12102(1).
18. Recent amendments to the ADA define "regarding as having such an impairment"
as used 42 U.S.C. § 12102(l)(C) as follows:
For purposes of paragraph (l)(C):
(A) An individual meets the requirement of ''being regarded as having such an impairn1ent" if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairn1ent whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
5

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6
(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less. 42 U.S.C.A. § 12102 (3). 19. The ADA calls for a broad construction of its terms noting, among other things, "[t]he definition of disability in this chapter shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under this chapter, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter." 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A). 20. Indiana law provides that the Indiana Supreme Court has "exclusive jurisdiction to ... admit attorneys to practice law in all courts of the state." IND. CODE 33-24-1-2. 21. Pursuant to this authority, the Indiana Supreme Court has created the State Board of Law Examiners ("Board"), a ten-person board made up of members of the Indiana bar. Admission and Discipline Rule 9. 22. The Board is responsible for, among other things, creating the forms for application for admission to the Indiana bar, assessing the character and fitness of applicants for the bar, supervising the bi-annual bar examination, and certifying to the Supreme Court the applicants who have passed the examination and further recommending to the Court that the bar applicants are eligible for admission. Admission and Discipline Rules 11, 12, 17, 18. 23. Admission Rule 12, Section 2, discusses the fact that an applicant seeking bar admission must be of "good moral character and fitness to practice law.'' The Rule notes further that: [t]he applicant shall have the burden of proving that he or she possesses the requisite good moral character and fitness to practice law. The applicant has the absolute duty to inform the Board with full candor of any
6

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7
facts which bear, even remotely, upon the question of the applicant's character and fitness and general qualifications to practice law, which obligation continues from the date of application to the time of admission, and includes the obligation to promptly and to fully inform the Board of any such facts occurring or discovered prior to admission. The term "good moral character" includes, but is not limited to, the qualities of honesty, fairness, candor, trustworthiness, observance of fiduciary responsibility, and of the laws of this State and of the United States, and a respect for the rights of other persons and things, and the judicial process. Anyone who has been convicted of a felony prima facie shall be deemed lacking the requisite of good moral character as defined in this section. The term "fitness" includes, but is not limited to, the physical and mental suitability of the applicant to practice law in Indiana. In satisfying the requirements of good moral character and fitness, applicants should be persons whose record of conduct justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts and others with respect to the professional duties owed to them, and whose record demonstrates the qualities ofhonesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability. In the determination of good moral character and fitness, relevant considerations may include, but are not limited to the following: unlawful conduct; academic misconduct; making of false statements, including omissions; misconduct in employment; acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; abuse of legal process; neglect of financial responsibilities; violation of an order of a court; evidence of mental or emotional instability; evidence of drug or alcohol dependency; denial of admission to the bar in another jurisdiction on character and fitness grounds; and disciplinary action by a lawyer disciplinary agency or other professional disciplinary agency of any jurisdiction.
24. The Indiana Supreme Court has also created JLAP.
The purpose of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program is assisting impaired members in recovery; educating the bench and bar; and reducing the potential harm caused by impairment to the individual, the public, the profession, and the legal system. Through the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, the Committee will provide assistance to judges, lawyer and law students who suffer from physical or mental disabilities that result from disease, chemical dependency, mental health problems or age that impair their ability to practice; and will support other programs designed to increase awareness about the problems of impairment among lawyers and judges.
Admission and Discipline Rule 31, Section 2.
25. The Board of Law Examines has authority to refer persons to JLAP '·for
7

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8
assessment or treatment." Admission and Discipline Rule 31, Section 8(c). Factual allegations 26. Pursuant to authority granted by the Indiana Supreme Court the Members have prescribed the Application for Admission Upon Examination to Practice Law which must be completed in order for an applicant to sit for the Indiana bar. 27. A copy of the current application is attached to this complaint. 28. Questions 20-26 concern themselves with questions about drug and alcohol addiction as well as questions about the applicant's mental health. 29. These questions are introduced by a preamble that assures the applicant that the information provided is confidential. 30. The preamble further notes that "[t]he mere fact of treatment for mental health problems or addictions is not, in itself, a basis on which the applicant is ordinarily denied admission .. , 31. The preamble also states: "[t]he State Board of Law Examiners may deny certification to applicants whose ability to function is impaired in a manner relevant to the practice of law or to applicants who fail to carry their burden of proving that they are possessed of good moral character and fitness." 32. Question 22 on the bar application asks "[h]ave you been diagnosed with or have you been treated for bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder?" 33. Question 23 on the bar application asks "[t]rom the age of 16 years to the present, have you been diagnosed with or treated for any mental, emotional or nervous disorders?"'
8

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9
34. Question 24 on the bar application asks "[d]o you have any condition or impairment (including, but not limited to, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental, emotional, or nervous disorder or condition) which in any way currently affects, or if untreated could affect, your ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner?" 35. Question 25 of the bar application asks "If your Answer to Question 24 is Yes, are the limitations or impainnents caused by your mental health condition or substance abuse problem reduced or ameliorated because you receive ongoing treatment (with or without medication) or because you participate in a monitoring program?" 36. If an affirmative answer is given to any of the above questions the bar applicant is instructed to complete form B1 which is a form where the applicant must include the dates of any treatment and the names and complete addresses of treatment providers along with a "[d]etailed description of the type of problem condition, impairment, diagnosis, treatment and/or monitoring program." 37. The applicant must make as many copies of Form Bl as "necessary to report each instance on a separate form." 38. The application notes that "[u]pon review of the information you provided in Form Bl the State Board of Law Examiners will make a determination whether further infonnation or medical records are needed to further assess you good moral character and fitness to practice law in Indiana. If such information or medical records are needed, you will be notified." 39. The application form contains a release form authorizing any and all persons to release information to the Board oflaw Examiners as requested.
9

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10
40. Question 26 of the application asks: "Have you ever raised the ... issue of a mental, emotional, nervous or behavioral disorder or condition as a defense, mitigation, or an explanation for your actions in the course of any administrative or judicial proceeding or investigation, any inquiry or other proceeding, or any proposed termination by an educational institution, employer, government agency, professional organization or licensing authority?" 41. If an affirmative answer is given the applicant must "provide a thorough written factual explanation [on] Form B-1.. Include pertinent names, addresses, dates and references to records, as appropriate." 42. On information and belief~ if an applicant answers in the affirmative to the questions contained in the application's paragraphs 23, 24, 25, or 26, the applicant may be referred to JLAP for further evaluation. 43. If the applicant answers in the affirmative to the questions contained in application paragraphs 23, 24, or 25 the applicant may be required to produce all medical records concerning past treatment, even if the applicant has no impairment that is relevant to the applicant's ability to become a member of the Indiana bar. 44. Applicant Doe is a graduate of an Indiana law school and is a member in good standing of the Illinois bar. She has never been subject to discipline as an attorney 45. Ms. Doe has been diagnosed in the past by mental health professionals as suffering from anxiety disorder and post traumatic stress disorder. She has been in mental health counseling and has consistently been able to function, both in law school and after law school, at a high level. 46. Ms. Doe applied for the Indiana bar in the fall of 2008. This application has been
10

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11
withdrawn and she has no application pending at the current time. 47. Ms. Doe completed the application for the Indiana bar and truthfully answered in the affirmative to questions 23 and 26. The application has been revised since then. However, questions 22-26 remain virtually identicaL 48. Upon answering these questions the Members determined that she had to contact JLAP for a thorough review of her mental health records and a further evaluation, if necessary. 49. Ms. Doe presented letters from mental health professionals who treated her who specified that she was able to function at a high level and was fit to practice Jaw and of high moral character. 50. Nevertheless, the Members determined that no determination of character and fitness could be made until after JLAP had completed its evaluation. 51. Ms. Doe withdrew her application for the bar before any determination was made as to her character and fitness. 52. Ms. Doe, and the other members of the putative class, merely because they have been diagnosed with mental, emotional or nervous disorders in the past, and/or merely because they are currently receiving treatment for these disorders which ameliorate any negative effect, are required to be subjected to unnecessary and intrusive inquiries into their mental health histories, as well as having this mental health history considered as relevant to their current ability to practice law, and having additional burdens imposed upon them, such as referrals to JLAP and the requirement that they comply with JLAP's requirements. 53. Ms. Doe and the members of the putative class are subjected to unnecessary
1 1

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12
inquiries and burdens merely because they have been diagnosed in the past with mental, emotional, or nervous disorders which have no bearing on their current fitness to practice law. 54. Ms. Doe and the members of the putative class have a disability as defined by ADA inasmuch as, at the very least, they have been subjected to discrimination prohibited by the ADA because of perceived mental impairments. 55. Ms. Doe, a member of the Illinois bar, is clearly a qualified individual with a disability in that she meets the essential requirements to be deemed to have the good character and fitness to sit for the Indiana bar examination. 56. Ms. Doe intends to apply to take the Indiana bar examination in February of2010. 57. She will be required to complete the application for the Indiana bar. 58. Ms. Doe does not want to subject herself again to answering the bar application's intrusive questions, but she will have to do so to be able to sit for the bar examination. 59. Ms. Doe does not want to have to produce all of her medical records and respond to invasive review and questioning by JLAP, but she will have to do to be able to sit for the bar examination. 60. Ms. Doe does not want her past mental health history which, inasmuch as it does not affect her behavior, conduct or character, has no relevance to the character and fitness inquiry, to be considered by the members. 61. The Members together as the Board of Law Examiners constitute a public entity under the ADA At all times defendants have acted under color of state law. 62. The actions of defendants are causing Ms. Doe and the putative class irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
12

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/07/09 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13
Legal claim
63. To the extent that defendants are subjecting Ms. Doe and the putative class to
different and elevated burdens solely because of their past histories of mental, emotional,
or nervous disorders, the defendants are discriminating against qualified individuals with
a disability in violation ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
Request for relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court:
a. Accept jurisdiction of this cause.
b. Certify this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with the class as defined above.
c. Enter a declaratory judgment that defendants have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act as specified above.
d. Enter a preliminary injunction, later to be made permanent, preventing defendants from asking plaintiff Doe and the putative class any questions or inquiries that do not concern behavior but which solely concern past or present mental health diagnoses or treatment and preventing defendants from discriminating against plaintiff Doe and the putative class because of their past or present mental health diagnoses.
e. Award plaintiff her costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
f. Award all other proper relief.
No ' ACLU of Indiana
1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 ext. 104 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org
Attorney for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
13

 
 Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 1 of 20
U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09−cv−00842−TWP−MJD

CLOSED

ACLU OF INDIANA − INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW − INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER, et al v. THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS Assigned to: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/07/2009 Date Terminated: 10/06/2011 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

AMANDA PERDUE on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated

represented by Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA 1031 E. Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 (317) 635−4059 x104 Fax: (317) 635−4105 Email: kfalk@aclu−in.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
ACLU OF INDIANA − INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW − INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER

represented by Kenneth J. Falk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS in their official capacities
Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW

represented by Anthony W. Overholt FROST BROWN TODD LLC (Indianapolis) 201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900 P.O. Box 44961 Indianapolis, IN 46244−0961 (317) 237−3936 Fax: (317) 237−3900 Email: aoverholt@fbtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darren Andrew Craig FROST BROWN TODD LLC 201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900 P.O. Box 44961 Indianapolis, IN 46204−0961 317−237−3975 Fax: 317−237−3900 Email: dcraig@fbtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ROBERT M. SHAW 1215 N. Jefferson Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46201 PRO SE

Date Filed # Docket Text

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 2 of 20

07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/13/2009 07/14/2009
07/15/2009
07/20/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009 07/29/2009 08/04/2009
08/08/2009

1 COMPLAINT against THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS filed by JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 application)(DH) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff, JANE DOE. (DH) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
3 RECEIPT #IP013486 in the amount of $350.00 for filing fee. (DH) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
4 Summons Issued as to THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (DH) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiff, JANE DOE. (DH) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
6 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DH) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
7 MOTION to Proeed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit "Jane Doe", # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
8 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 7 MOTION to Proeed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
9 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
10 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 9 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Laura Lee Bowker on behalf of Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
12 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to August 26, 2009 to file response to 9 MOTION to Certify Class, 7 MOTION to Proeed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
13 ORDER granting defts' 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 9 MOTION to Certify Class and 7 MOTION to Proeed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name. Response due by 8/26/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 7/15/2009. (SWM) Modified on 7/15/2009 (SWM). (Entered: 07/15/2009)
14 NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
16 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
17 RETURN of Service by CMRRR, filed by JANE DOE. THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS served on 7/13/2009. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
18 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to August 28, 2009 to file response to 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
19 ORDER denying pltf's 7 Motion to proceed under an anonymous name and to seal affidavit containing actual name. Pltf shall file an amended complaint w/i 14 days that identifies her by name (see Order for other details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 3 of 20

08/10/2009 08/17/2009 08/20/2009 08/20/2009 08/20/2009 08/26/2009 08/28/2009
08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 09/01/2009 09/02/2009 09/03/2009

A. Baker on 8/8/09. (SWM) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
20 ORDER granting defts' 18 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Response due by 8/28/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 8/10/09. (SWM) (Entered: 08/11/2009)
21 ORDER Setting Settlement Conference and Related Deadlines. SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 9/4/2009 10:30 AM in room #234 before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. Confidential settlement statements due three business days prior to the conference (see Order for other details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 8/17/09.(SWM) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
22 OBJECTION to Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name −− Motion for the Court to Review and Reverse Magistrate Judge's Decision by JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
23 MEMORANDUM re 22 Objection − in Support of Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name −− Motion for the Court to Review and Reverse Magistrate Judge's Decision, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 8/21/2009 (DWH). (Entered: 08/20/2009)
24 MOTION for Extension of Time to FIle Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
25 RESPONSE in Opposition re 9 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
26 ORDER granting pltf's 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File amended complaint. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the time within which plaintiff must file an amended complaint that identifies her by name is extended until 14 days after a ruling on her Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name Motion for the Court to Review and Reverse Magistrate Judge pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the event that the Magistrate Judges Order is affirmed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 8/28/2009. (SWM) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
28 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
29 RESPONSE in Opposition re 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
30 MOTION for Extension of Time to September 30, 2009 to file reply to 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 9 MOTION to Certify Class, MOTION for Extension of Time to September 30, 2009 to file response to 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
31 RESPONSE in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Donald G. Banta on behalf of Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Banta, Donald) (Entered: 09/03/2009)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 4 of 20

09/08/2009
09/10/2009
09/16/2009 09/29/2009
09/30/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/09/2009 10/15/2009

33 ORDER granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re 9 MOTION to Certify Class, and 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, ( Reply due by 9/30/2009 ); granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ( Response due by 9/30/2009 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 9/8/2009. (CBU) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
34 ORDER on 9/4/2009, Settlement Conference. Parties appeared in person and by counsel. Settlement discussions were held, but no settlement was reached. Plaintiffs shall serve an updated settlement demand by September 16, 2009. Defendants shall serve a response promptly following the upcoming Board of Law Examiners meeting. The parties shall submit (not file) courtesy copies of the demand/response to the Magistrate Judge at the time of service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 9/10/2009.(SWM) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
35 REPLY in Support of Motion re 7 MOTION to Proeed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
36 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to October 7, 2009 to file reply to 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 9 MOTION to Certify Class UNOPPOSED, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 9/29/2009 (DWH). (Entered: 09/29/2009)
37 ORDER granting pltf's 36 Motion for extension of time to file reply in support of motion for preliminary injunction and motion for class certification and response in opposition to motion to dismiss to 10/7/09. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 9/30/09. (SWM) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
38 AMENDED COMPLAINT −Class Action against THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Bar Application)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
39 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiff ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
40 NOTICE of Filing of Affidavits by all plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Zoe Meier, # 2 Affidavit Jane Doe) (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
41 Amended MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
42 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 41 Amended MOTION to Certify Class / Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
43 RESPONSE in Opposition re 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Reply Memorandum in Support re 15 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
44 NOTICE of Correction of Certificate of Service, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
45 Reassignment of Case to Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number, 1:09−cv−0842−WTL−JMS, on all future filings in this matter. (DH) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
46 MOTION for Extension of Time to November 16, 2009 to Respond to Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 38 , Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction 43 , and Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Class Certification 41 , filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 5 of 20

10/19/2009 11/03/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/19/2009
11/30/2009 11/30/2009 11/30/2009 11/30/2009 12/01/2009 12/08/2009 12/10/2009

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
47 ORDER granting 46 Motion for Extension of Time to November 16, 2009 to respond to Plaintiff's pending motions. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 10/19/2009. (LBK) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
48 SCHEDULING ORDER: This matter is hereby set for a Hearing on Plaintiff Jane Does Motion for Preliminary Injunction (dkt. 15) on Friday, December 18, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 307 of the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 11/3/2009.(JHO) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
49 REPLY in Support of Motion re 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
50 RESPONSE in Opposition re 41 Amended MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
51 ENTRY FOR NOVEMBER 16, 2009. This cause is set for a telephonic discovery conference on November 19, 2009 at 2:00 P.M. Counsel shall call the Court at 317−229−3670. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/16/2009.(MRI) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
52 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephone Discovery Conference held on 11/19/2009 and parties address Plaintiff's discovery seeking certain anonymous information concerning bar applicants. Defendants will file a motion for protective order by November 30, 2009 addressing both the confidentiality and burden claims. Plaintiff will file a quick response, no reply is necessary. Plaintiff will file a brief sur−reply concerning Defendants' motion to dismiss in light of recent amendments to the complaint also by November 30, 2009. (SWM) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
53 Surreply re 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Jane Doe (Supplemental))(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
54 MOTION for Protective Order, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
55 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 54 MOTION for Protective Order and in Opposition to Motion to Compel, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
56 REPLY in Support of Motion re 41 Amended MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Zoe Meier (Supplemental), # 2 Exhibit Interrogatories)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
57 RESPONSE in Opposition re 54 MOTION for Protective Order, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Interrogatories, # 2 Indiana Bar Exam Statistics)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
60 ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS: For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 27 is DENIED **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/8/2009. (DWH) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
58 MOTION for Continuance, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Motion for Continuance)(Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 12/10/2009)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 6 of 20

12/10/2009 12/11/2009 12/11/2009 12/11/2009 12/11/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009
12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/17/2009 12/18/2009 01/04/2010

59 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 58 MOTION for Continuance, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
61 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE: GRANTED 58 Motion for Continuance. The hearing currently scheduled for Friday, December 18, 2009, is VACATED to be reset under separate Order. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/11/2009. (DWH) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
62 NOTICE of Appearance by Darren Andrew Craig on behalf of Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Craig, Darren) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
63 NOTICE of Appearance by Anthony W. Overholt on behalf of Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
64 REPLY in Support of Motion re 54 MOTION for Protective Order, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Craig, Darren) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
65 MOTION of Withdrawal of Appearance by Laura L. Bowker on behalf of THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Withdrawal for Bowker) (Bowker, Laura) Modified on 12/15/2009 (DWH). (Entered: 12/14/2009)
66 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Banta, Donald) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
67 ENTRY for 12/14/2009: Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (the Motion). [Dkt. 54.] After having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court concludes that oral argument is appropriate. Accordingly, the Motion is set for oral argument on December 28, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 349, United States Courthouse, Indianapolis, Indiana. Defendants will be permitted twenty minutes for opening argument, and five minutes for a reply. Plaintiff will be permitted twenty minutes for a response argument. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/14/09.(SWM) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
68 Unopposed MOTION to Reset Oral Argument to January 8, 2010, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
69 ORDER granting 65 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Laura Lee Bowker withdrawn. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/15/09. (SWM) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
70 ORDER granting 66 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Donald G. Banta withdrawn. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/15/09. (SWM) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
71 ORDER granting defts' 68 Motion to reset Oral Argument currently set for 12/28/2009. Hearing RESET for 1/8/2010 02:30 PM in room #349 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/17/2009. (SWM) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
72 ANSWER to 38 Amended Complaint Answer to Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS.(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
73 ENTRY ON OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE'S ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Doe's Motion to Review and Reverse the Magistrate Judge's Decision 22 is DENIED. Within 14 days of this entry Doe shall file an amended complaint that identifies her by name **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/4/2010.(DWH) (Entered: 01/06/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 7 of 20

01/08/2010 01/18/2010 01/18/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/26/2010 01/26/2010 01/27/2010 01/27/2010 01/28/2010 01/29/2010
01/29/2010

74 ENTRY Following Hearing: On January 8, 2010, the parties appeared by counsel for oral argument on Defendants' Motion for Protective Order [dkt. 54 ]. The Court GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART the Motion for Protective Order. The Court denied Plaintiffs' request for fees. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/8/2010. (See Order) (Court Reporter Fred Pratt.)(TRG) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
75 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Amended Complaint)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
76 NOTICE of Corrections to Motion to File Amended Complaint and Notice of Filing of Omitted Attachment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE (Attachments: # 1 Bar Exam Application − Attachment to 2nd Am. Complaint) (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
77 ORDER granting pltfs' 75 Motion to file Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief shall be filed with the appropriate attachment (see Notice of Correction dkt. 76) by January 25, 2010. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/22/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
78 MARGINAL ENTRY re 76 Notice of Correction: Reviewed by magistrate judge. Please see order on motion to amend granted this date. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/22/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
79 MOTION to Tender Belated Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Amended Complaint, # 3 Attachment to Complaint − Bar Exam Application)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
80 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Summary of CMP)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
81 ORDER granting pltfs' 79 Motion to file belated second amended class action complaint. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/27/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
82 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second Amended) against THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, filed by AMANDA PERDUE and ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter. (Attachments: # 1 Bar Exam Application)(SWM) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
83 SCHEDULING ENTRY: Status/Pretrial Conference set for 3/12/2010 03:00 PM in room #361 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Issued by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/28/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
84 ENTRY ON AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION: GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART 41 Amended Motion to Certify Class. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification 41 is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Perdue. Because the Court is unable to determine whether the ACLU has standing, the Court cannot find that the ACLU is an appropriate class representative. Accordingly, the Amended Motion for Class Certification is DENIED as to the ACLU. Within 21 days of the date of this Entry the ACLU shall file a brief in support of its standing. The Defendants shall have 14 days to respond, and no reply is necessary. If the Court finds that the ACLU has standing, and if the organization still wishes to be a class representative, then the ACLU may file an appropriate motion at that time **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/29/2010. (DWH) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
88 ORDER: CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED AS AMENDED. Dispositive Motions due by 9/27/2010. Counsel and the parties are reminded that they are required to conduct a conference under LR 37.1 in the event of a discovery dispute. If the conference is unsuccessful, and the dispute does not involve a claim of privilege, the parties are advised to request a phone status conference prior to filing any motion to

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 8 of 20

02/01/2010
02/01/2010 02/01/2010 02/03/2010 02/03/2010
02/03/2010 02/08/2010 02/10/2010 02/10/2010 02/12/2010
02/12/2010
02/12/2010 02/12/2010

compel or for protective order. If the dispute has arisen because a party has failed to timely respond to propounded discovery, the propounding party may proceed with a motion to compel without seeking a conference. Additionally, the parties are advised to not only number but to add a descriptive identifier for anyexhibits which are electronically filed (see Order for example and other details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/29/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
85 MOTION to Substitute Corrected Amended Motion for Class Certification with Plaintiff's Actual Name, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Corrected Amended Motion for Class Certification)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
86 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiff AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
87 MOTION for Continuance Status/Pre−Trial Conference, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
89 ORDER granting pltfs' 87 Motion for Continuance of Status/Pretrial Conference. Status/Pretrial Conference RESET for 3/29/2010 10:00 AM in room #361 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/3/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
90 ORDER granting pltfs' 85 Motion to substitute corrected amended motion for class certification with pltf's actual name. Corrected amended motion forclass certification is hereby substituted for their original amended motion for class certification (Docket No. 41). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/3/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
91 CORRECTED AMENDED MOTION for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter and AMANDA PERDUE. (SWM) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
92 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
93 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
94 ANSWER to 82 Amended Complaint, filed by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS.(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 Order on Motion to Certify Class, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Denying Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
96 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 Order on Motion to Certify Class, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Sealed Cover Sheet for Exhibit 1 to Defendant's Brief − Application for Admission and Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Jane Noe Complaint)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
97 SEALED Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion to Reconsider Entry on Amended Motion for Class Certification, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
98 MOTION to Seal Document 97 SEALED Document Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion to Reconsider Entry on Amended Motion for Class Certification,

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 9 of 20

02/16/2010 02/16/2010 02/17/2010 02/24/2010 03/02/2010 03/04/2010 03/05/2010 03/05/2010
03/05/2010 03/08/2010 03/08/2010 03/08/2010

filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Motion to Seal Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion to Reconsider Entry on Amended Motion for Class Certification)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
99 Submission of Memorandum in Support of Standing of the ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
100 ORDER granting 98 Motion to Seal Document 97 Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion to Reconsider Entry on Amended Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/16/2010. (LBK) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
101 ENTRY FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CONFERENCE: On February 17, 2010, the parties appeared in person by counsel for a discovery conference concerning two issues (see Entry for details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/17/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
102 RESPONSE in Opposition re 95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 Order on Motion to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
103 NOTICE of Withdrawal, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE, re 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
104 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Stipulated Protective Order by ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/04/2010)
105 REPLY in Support of Motion re 95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 Order on Motion to Certify Class, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 03/05/2010)
106 RESPONSE in Opposition re 95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 Order on Motion to Certify Class Defendants' Brief Opposing ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter's Request to be Appointed Class Representative, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Craig, Darren) (Entered: 03/05/2010)
107 ORDER re Parties' 104 Proposed Stipulated Protective Order.The Motion is DENIED, but without prejudice to re−file an amended version if the parties so desire (see Order for details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/5/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 03/05/2010)
108 Witness List −Preliminary, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE, Exhibit List −Preliminary, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
109 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend Pleadings by Adding Additional Parties, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
110 SCHEDULING ENTRY: Status Conference set for 3/15/2010 03:30 PM in Telephonic before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Counsel shall call the Court at the number provided. Issued by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/8/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 03/08/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 10 of 20

03/09/2010
03/10/2010 03/12/2010 03/15/2010
03/15/2010 03/15/2010
03/15/2010
03/16/2010 03/25/2010
03/29/2010 04/07/2010 04/19/2010

111 ORDER granting pltfs' 109 Motion to extend deadline for amending pleadings by adding additional parties to 30 days after the later of the time that this Court issues its ruling on the motions to reconsider class certification and its ruling on whether the ACLU of Indiana Indiana University School of Law Indianapolis Chapter has standing and may serve as a class representative in this cause. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/9/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
112 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Amended Stipulated Protective Order by ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
113 AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 112 APPROVED. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/12/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
114 Submission of Reply Memorandum in Support of Standing of ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Anonymous Ex. 1, # 2 Affidavit Anonymous Ex. 2, # 3 Affidavit Anonymous Ex. 3, # 4 Affidavit Anonymous Ex. 4, # 5 Affidavit Anonymous Ex. 5)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
115 MOTION to Seal Document 116 Submission of Attachment −AGREED, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 3/16/2010 (SWM). (Entered: 03/15/2010)
116 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 3/16/2010 *** SEALED −Cover Sheet for Documents Under Seal, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # (1) Affidavit Exhibit 1, # (2) Affidavit Exhibit 2, # (3) Affidavit Exhibit 3, # (4) Affidavit Exhibit 4, # (5) Affidavit Exhibit 5)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 3/17/2010 (SWM). (Entered: 03/15/2010)
117 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephone Status Conference held on 3/15/2010. The status and development of the action were discussed, and as a result of this conference the following Entry is made pursuant to Rule 16(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is about to file responses on the reconsideration issue under seal. Parties are beginning depositions in the next few weeks. The status/pretrial conference scheduled for March 29, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED and RESET for April 19, 2010 (telephonic) at 3:30 p.m. Counsel to call the court at the number provided. (SWM) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
118 ORDER granting pltfs' 115 Motion to Seal DKT. 116. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/16/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
119 ENTRY ON STANDING, CLASS REPRESENTATION, AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the ACLU has standing and is an appropriate class representative. Accordingly, the ACLU's request to be appointed a class representative is GRANTED. In addition, the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration 95 is DENIED **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/25/2010. (DWH) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
120 SCHEDULING ENTRY: The telephonic status conference set for April 19, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. is converted to an in−person status conference. The parties shall be prepared to update the magistrate judge on settlement negotiations. Issued by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/29/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
121 Exhibit List Preliminary, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, Witness List Preliminary, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Craig, Darren) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
122 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Status Conference held on 4/19/2010. Discussion held regarding discovery, settlement and related matters, and as a result of this conference the following Entry is made pursuant to Rule 16(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Telephonic status conference set for May 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. to discuss case status and scheduling settlement conference. Counsel to call the court at the number provided. (SWM) (Entered:

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 11 of 20

05/19/2010
05/31/2010
06/02/2010 06/02/2010 06/11/2010
06/15/2010 06/17/2010
06/23/2010 06/25/2010 07/02/2010

04/20/2010)
123 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/19/2010. Discovery, settlement and related matters were discussed, and as a result of this conference the following Entry is made pursuant to Rule 16(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Telephonic status is set for June 23, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. by which time the parties will have conducted certain significant depositions, reached stipulations, and continued settlement negotiations. Counsel to call the court at the number provided. (SWM) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
124 ORDER − Previously, the Court took under advisement two discovery issues. [See dkt. 101 .] On the first issue, the Court finds that any probative information that could be uncovered by class−member discovery is outweighed by the significant intrusion upon the class members' privacy. The next issue was the propriety of Defendants' Interrogatories 4−5 and Requests for Production 5−7, all directed to Plaintiff Perdue. To the extent that Ms. Perdue has any other responsive information that has not previously been provided to Defendants, the facial nature of the challenge to Defendants' questions means that the probative value of that information is outweighed by the intrusion upon Ms. Perdue's privacy, and is thus improper. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/31/2010.(TRG) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
125 ENTRY FOR JUNE 2, 2010. This matter is set for a telephonic status conference on June 2, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. Counsel to call the court at 317−229−3670. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/2/2010.(MRI) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
126 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/2/2010. Parties advise they are likely at impasse as to settlement. The magistrate judge requested that they provide courtesy copies of their draft proposals for her review. (SWM) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
127 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants' Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order on Discovery by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. Related document: 124 Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Amanda G. Perdue, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Defendants' First Set of Requests for Production to Amanda G. Perdue, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Amanda G. Perdue, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Response to Defendants' First Set of Request for Production to Amanda G. Perdue)(Craig, Darren) Modified on 6/14/2010 (JHO). (Entered: 06/11/2010)
128 Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr. Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:09−cv−842−WTL−WGH), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (NS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
129 NOTICE REGARDING STATUS CONFERENCE − The Telephonic Status Conference set for June 23,2010, at 3:30 p.m., Indianapolis time (EDT), remains on the calendar for that same day before Magistrate Judge Hussmann at 1:00 p.m., Indianapolis time (EDT). Each counsel wishing to participate in this conference shall individually place a call to the court's bridge line at (812) 434−6403 at the time of the conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 6/17/2010.(NRN) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
130 RESPONSE in Opposition re 127 MOTION for Reconsideration, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
131 Reassignment of Case to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Judge William T. Lawrence no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:09−cv−00842−TWP−WGH), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (MAC) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
132 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr: Status Conference held on 6/23/2010. Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/9/2010 09:15 AM before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. (SMD) (Entered: 07/02/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 12 of 20

07/06/2010 07/26/2010 08/31/2010 08/31/2010 09/06/2010 09/09/2010 09/12/2010 09/15/2010 10/13/2010
10/20/2010 10/21/2010 11/04/2010 11/05/2010
11/05/2010 11/07/2010 11/16/2010

133 REPLY in Support of Motion re 127 MOTION for Reconsideration Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order on Discovery, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Craig, Darren) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
134 MOTION for Injunctive Order, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (TMA) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
135 MOTION to join class action lawsuit, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (DWH) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
136 MOTION for injunctive order, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (DWH) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
137 Entry Concerning Selected Matters: For reason set forth in the Entry the Court DENIES 134 Motion for Injunction; DENIES 135 Motion to Join Class Action Lawsuit; DENIES 136 Motion for Injunction. ***SEE ENTRY*** Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/6/2010. (JD) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
138 MOTION to Place Evidence on Record, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (Attachments: # 1 Evidence)(JD) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
139 Joint MOTION to Modify Case Management Order and Extend Summary Judgment Deadline, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/12/2010)
140 ORDER granting 139 Motion to Modify Case Management Plan. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 9/15/2010. (SMD) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
141 ORDER denying 138 Motion to Place Evidence on Record. The reasons for this ruling are that ROBERT SHAW is not a party to the action, he has no privilege of filing materials as if he was a party, and the information he presents in his motion cannot reasonably advance any aspect of the litigation. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/13/2010. (JD) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
142 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to November 8, 2010 (FURTHER MOTION) to File Summary Judgment Motion, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/20/2010)
143 ORDER granting 142 Motion for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Motion to 11/8/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 10/21/2010. (NRN) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
144 STIPULATION of Facts (First), filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Medical Licensing Renewal)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/04/2010)
145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Loepker deposition, # 2 Exhibit Harrell deposition, # 3 Exhibit Bar Exam Statistics, # 4 Exhibit Williams deposition, # 5 Exhibit Parker deposition, # 6 Exhibit Cooper deposition, # 7 Exhibit Perdue affidavit, # 8 Exhibit Survey state bar applications− Pt 1, # 9 Exhibit Survey state bar applications− Pt 2)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
146 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
147 NOTICE of Expert Disclosure, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/07/2010)
148 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr: Status Conference held on 11/9/2010. By agreement of the parties, filing of final witness and exhibit lists is stayed until a date to be set at next status conference.

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 13 of 20

12/03/2010
12/07/2010 12/18/2010 12/23/2010 01/04/2011
01/06/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011

Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/19/2011 04:30 PM (IP time) before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. (SMD) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
149 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to January 5, 2011 to file response to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment and to File Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Defendants' Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment)(Craig, Darren) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
150 ORDER granting 149 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 1/15/2011 re 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 12/7/2010. (NRN) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
151 Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:09−cv−842−TWP−MJD), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (JD) (Entered: 12/18/2010)
152 ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER − For the reasons set forth, the Court AFFIRMS 124 Magistrate Judge's May 31, 2010 Order, DENYING the Board's 127 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/23/2010. (JD) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
153 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to 01/19/11 to File Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Extension of Time to 1/19/11 in which to file Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
154 ORDER granting 153 Motion for Extension of Time to File to January 19, 2011, within which to file their Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/6/2011. (JD) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
155 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 01/19/2011)
156 REDACTION to 157 SEALED Brief in Opposition to 145 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of 155 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
157 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 1/20/2011 *** SEALED Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Support of 155 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
158 Designation of Evidence in Support of 155 CROSS− MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Report of George F. Parker, M.D., # 2 Exhibit 2 − Excerpts of Depo of Stewart Cooper, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Report of Martin H. Williams, Ph.D., # 4 Cover Sheet for Sealed Document Ex 4 Filed Under Seal, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Indiana Appln for Admission Upon Examination to Practice Law, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Indiana Appln for Admission on Foreign License, Standard NCBE Form, # 7 Exhibit Alabama Bar Application, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Colorado Bar Application, # 9 Exhibit Maryland Bar Application, # 10 Exhibit 10 − Ohio Bar Application, # 11 Exhibit 11− Texas Bar Application, # 12 Exhibit 12 − Washington Bar Application, # 13 Cover Sheet for Sealed Document Ex 13 Filed Under Seal, # 14 Cover Sheet for Sealed Document Ex 14 Filed Under Seal, # 15 Exhibit 15 − Complaint in Cause No.

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 14 of 20

01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/20/2011 01/27/2011

2:08−cv−227 (N.D. Ind.), # 16 Exhibit 16 − Opinion & Order in Cause No. 2:08−cv−227 (N.D. Ind.), # 17 Exhibit 17 − Amd Complaint in Cause No. 2:08−cv−227 (N.D. Ind.), # 18 Exhibit 18 − Order in Cause No. 2:08−cv−227 (N.D. Ind.), # 19 Exhibit 19 − Affidavit of Mary Idstein, # 20 Exhibit 20 − Complaint in Cause No. 2:10−cv−035 (N.D. Ind.), # 21 Exhibit 21 − Order in Cause No. 2:10−cv−035 (N.D. Ind.), # 22 Exhibit 22 − Order in Cause No. 2:10−cv−035 (N.D. Ind.), # 23 Exhibit 23 − Plaintiff's Legal Memo in Cause No. 2:10−cv−035, # 24 Exhibit 24 − Martindale Profile of Amanda G. Perdue, # 25 Exhibit 25 − National Conference of Bar Examiners Standard Appln Form, # 26 Cover Sheet for Sealed Document Ex 26 Filed Under Seal, # 27 Exhibit 27 − Viewpoint: I hope you read this, Ind. Lawyer 11−24−10, # 28 Cover Sheet for Sealed Document Ex 28 Filed Under Seal)(Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
159 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 1/20/2011 *** SEALED Exhibit 4, re 158 Designation of Evidence in Support of 155 CROSS−MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
160 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 1/20/2011 *** SEALED Exhibit 13, re 158 Designation of Evidence in Support of 155 CROSS−MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
161 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 1/20/2011 *** SEALED Exhibit 14, re 158 Designation of Evidence in Support of 155 CROSS−MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
162 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 1/20/2011 *** SEALED Exhibit 26, re 158 Designation of Evidence in Support of 155 CROSS−MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
163 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 1/20/2011 *** SEALED Exhibit 28, re 158 Designation of Evidence in Support of 155 CROSS−MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
164 MOTION to Seal Document 157 SEALED Response in Opposition to Motion, 159 SEALED Exhibit 4, 160 SEALED Exhibit 13, 161 SEALED Exhibit 14, 162 SEALED Exhibit 26, 163 SEALED Exhibit 28, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
165 ORDER granting defts' 164 Motion to Seal Dkt. Nos. 157, 159, 160, 161, 162 and 163. Defts shall file within seven (7) days of this order, redacted versions of Dkt. Nos. 159, 160, 161, 162 and 163 for the court's public record (see Order for further details) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/20/2011. (SWM) Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/21/2011)
166 REDACTION re 159 SEALED Exhibit 4 re 158 Designation of Evidence by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/28/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/27/2011)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 15 of 20

01/27/2011 01/27/2011 01/27/2011 01/28/2011 02/16/2011
02/16/2011
02/16/2011 02/21/2011 03/04/2011
03/07/2011 03/08/2011
03/08/2011 03/14/2011

167 REDACTION re 161 Sealed Exhibit 14 re 158 Designation of Evidence by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/28/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/27/2011)
168 REDACTION re 162 Sealed Exhibit 26 re 158 Designation of Evidence by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/28/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/27/2011)
169 REDACTION re 163 SEALED Exhibit 28 re 158 Designation of Evidence by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/28/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/27/2011)
170 REDACTION to 160 SEALED Exhibit 13 re 158 Designation of Evidence by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/31/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/28/2011)
171 REDACTED RESPONSE in Opposition re 155 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' 145 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Supplemental Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit Supplemental Affidavit)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 2/17/2011 (JD). (Entered: 02/16/2011)
172 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 2/21/2011 *** SEALED RESPONSE in Opposition re 155 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' 145 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Supplemental Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit Supplemental Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit Supplemental Affidavit)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 2/17/2011 (JD). Modified on 2/22/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 02/16/2011)
173 MOTION to Seal Document 172 SEALED Document, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
174 ORDER granting pltfs' 173 Motion to Seal Dkt. Number 172. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/21/2011. (SWM) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
175 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to March 14, 2011 to file reply to 155 MOTION for Summary Judgment Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Defendants' Agreed Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants to File Their Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
176 ORDER granting 175 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to 3/14/2011 re 155 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/7/2011. (JD) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
177 SCHEDULING ORDER − The Court hereby sets the Final Pretrial Conference for October 19, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 330, and the Bench Trial to begin on November 7, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 344, Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Counsel shall be prepared to fully discuss the status of the action, including all matters requiring completion preparatory to trial at the final pretrial conference. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/8/2011.(JD) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
178 TRIAL PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (JD) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
179 REPLY in Support of Motion re 155 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 16 of 20

03/29/2011 04/01/2011 04/23/2011 07/08/2011 07/11/2011 08/25/2011
09/20/2011 09/20/2011 09/20/2011
09/27/2011 10/03/2011

LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
180 MOTION Requests for Oral Argument on Motions for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Setting Oral Argument on Motions for Summary Judgment)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
181 ORDER granting 180 Motion for Oral Argument on Motions for Summary Judgment − The Oral Argument is set for 7/22/2011 at 09:00 AM in room #344, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Time allotted for oral argument is one hour total, 30 minutes per side. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/1/2011.(JD) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
182 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: The parties appeared by telephone for a status conference. The parties report that discovery is complete. Parties are to report to the Court by April 29, 2011 whether the scheduling of another settlement conference would be productive. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (TMA) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
183 MOTION for Continuance of Summary Judgment Oral Argument, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Oral Argument)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
184 ORDER granting 183 Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Oral Argument − The Oral Argument is CONTINUED to 8/24/2011 at 03:30 PM in room #344, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Time alloted for the oral argument is one hour. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/11/2011.(JD) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
185 ENTRY AND ORDER REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT HELD AUGUST 24, 2011 − This matter is before the Court for oral argument on 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 155 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Parties appear by counsel. Oral Argument is heard. The Court takes this matter under advisement and will issue a ruling on or before September 30, 2011. The final pretrial conference set October 19, 2011 and the trial set November 7, 2011 are hereby VACATED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (Court Reporter Fred Pratt.)(JD) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
186 ENTRY − The Court is prepared to issue its ruling regarding the pending motions for summary judgment NOT under seal. If either party believes the Court's ruling should be filed under seal, that party must file Notice in CM/ECF by 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, September 21, 2011. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/20/2011.(TRG) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
187 NOTICE (JOINT) in Response to Court's Entry of September 20, 2011, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
188 ENTRY ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT − Plaintiffs' Motion (Dkt. 145 ) is GRANTED with respect to Question 23 but DENIED with respect to Questions 22, 24, and 25. Conversely, the Board's Motion (Dkt. 155 ) is GRANTED with respect to Questions 22, 24, and 25 but DENIED with respect to Question 23. The parties are directed to notify the Court within seven days if entry of Final Judgment is appropriate. If the parties agree that Final Judgment is appropriate, they are directed to submit a mutually agreeable proposed Final Judgment at that time. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/20/2011. (JD) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
189 NOTICE of Joint Submission of Proposed Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Judgment) (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/27/2011)
190 MOTION to Redefine Class to Be Consistent with Entry on Cross−Motions for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 17 of 20

10/05/2011 10/06/2011 10/06/2011
12/02/2011 12/02/2011 12/19/2011 12/21/2011 12/22/2011 01/04/2012 01/17/2012
01/17/2012 01/19/2012 01/19/2012

Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
191 RESPONSE to 190 Motion to Amend Cass Definition, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Added link to Motion on 10/6/2011 (JD). (Entered: 10/05/2011)
192 ORDER granting 190 Motion to Redefine Class. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/6/2011. (JD) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
193 CLOSED JUDGMENT − Comes now the Court, following its Entry on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 188 ), and enters the following Findings and Judgment. Defendants are permanently enjoined and shall immediately cease utilizing Question 23 on the Indiana Bar application. The Board of Law Examiners shall immediately take steps to remove question 23 from the application for the February, 2012 bar examination. Time within which plaintiffs are to submit any claims for attorneys' fees or costs is extended until sixty (60) days from the date of this Judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/6/2011.(JD) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
194 **WITHDRAWN PER DKT. NO. 219 ** MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Kenneth J. Falk, # 2 Affidavit Kandy Kendall, # 3 Affidavit Richard A. Waples, # 4 Affidavit Michael K. Sutherlin)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 6/21/2012 (JD). (Entered: 12/02/2011)
195 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 194 MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
196 RESPONSE in Opposition re 194 MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − 6/30/10 Rule 68 Offer of Judgment)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
197 MOTION for Extension of Time to January 5, 2012 to file reply to 194 MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
198 ORDER granting 197 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to 1/5/2012 re 194 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 12/22/2011. (JD) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
199 REPLY in Support of Motion re 194 MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
200 **WITHDRAWN PER DKT. NO. 219 ** MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Defendants' Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Surreply)(Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 6/21/2012 (JD). (Entered: 01/17/2012)
201 SCHEDULING ORDER: This matter is set for an in person conference regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys fees on Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in room 257, United States Court House, 46 E.Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/17/2012.(SWM) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
202 **STRICKEN PER DKT. NO. 206 ** ORDER granting 200 Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/19/2012. (JD) Modified on 1/20/2012 (JD). (Entered: 01/19/2012)
203 **STRICKEN PER DKT. NO. 206 ** Surreply re 194 MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (JD) Modified on 1/20/2012 (JD). (Entered:

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 18 of 20

01/19/2012 01/19/2012 01/20/2012 01/23/2012 01/26/2012
03/02/2012 05/04/2012
05/11/2012 05/14/2012 05/21/2012

01/19/2012)
204 MOTION for Reconsideration re 202 Order on Motion for Leave to File Surreply, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
205 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 204 MOTION for Reconsideration re 202 Order on Motion for Leave to File Surreply, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) Removed duplicate wording on 1/20/2012 (JD). (Entered: 01/19/2012)
206 ORDER granting 204 Motion for Reconsideration − Having reconsidered its prior Order allowing the proposed surreply to be filed (Doc. No. 202), the surreply is now STRICKEN. The Plaintiffs shall have until January 25, 2012 to file their response in opposition. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/20/2012. (JD) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
207 RESPONSE in Opposition re 200 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees , filed by Plaintiffs ACLU OF INDIANA − INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW − INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
208 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: In−Person Conference held on 1/26/2012. The parties have agreed to a conditional resolution of this dispute. The Court hereby STAYS all further briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees and Related Motions pending further order. Status Conference set for 2/29/2012 04:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss case status. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided via email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
210 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephone Status Conference held on 2/29/2012. The parties discussed the status of resolution of this matter. Status Conference set for 4/30/2012 04:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss status of approval of the fee settlement. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided via email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
212 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 4/30/2012. The parties indicated that the settlement of this matter has been approved by the Supreme Court and has been sent to the Attorney General for approval. Status Conference set for 5/17/2012 11:20 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Defendant should be prepared to advise the Court of the status of the approval of the settlement and a proposed time−line for completion of the settlement. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
213 MOTION for Continuance of Telephonic Status Conference, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Continuing Status Conference)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
215 ORDER granting Defts' 213 Motion for Continuance of Telephonic Status Conference currently scheduled for 5/17/2012. Status Conference RESET for 5/18/2012 03:20 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. All other requirements of the Court's order dated 5/4/12 212 remain in full force and effect. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 5/14/2012.(SWM) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
217 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 5/18/2012. (See Entry for details.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (TMA) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 19 of 20

06/20/2012 06/21/2012 08/21/2014 10/01/2014
10/22/2014 03/25/2015
04/03/2015 04/16/2015 04/21/2015
04/23/2015 04/24/2015

218 NOTICE (JOINT) Concerning Settlement of Attorneys' Fees and Costs Claims, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU OF INDIANA − INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW − INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER, AMANDA PERDUE, Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
219 ORDER − The parties, having filed their Joint Notice Concerning Settlement of Attorneys' Fee and Costs Claims, and the Court having read the Notice and being duly advised finds that all pending motions in this case have been withdrawn and all pending matters have been fully resolved. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is closed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/21/2012.(JD) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
220 Submission of Friend of the Court brief, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ADH) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
221 MOTION for Contempt of Court against The Indiana Board of Law Examiners 2) Motion for admission to the Board for Robert M. Shaw under the Americans with Disabilities Act 3)Motion to strike down the fee of $875 set high to prevent out of State applicants and people on SSI from practicing law in Indiana based on limited income. 4) Motion for Summary Judgment based on the fact of previous Order, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Copy of E−mails, # 2 Exhibit 2−Copy of E−mails, # 3 Exhibit 3−Copy of E−mails, # 4 Exhibit 4−Copy of letter dated 9/23/2014 from the State of Indiana, # 5 Exhibit 5−Copy of E−mail, # 6 Exhibit 6−Copy of E−mail, # 7 Envelope)(CBU) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
222 Rule 11b the Plaintiff adds additional evidence in supporting, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (Attachments: # 1 Attachments A−D, # 2 Envelope)(CBU) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
223 Entry Directing Further Proceedings − This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Contempt of Court against the Indiana Board of Law Examiner, Motion for Admission to the Board for Robert M. Shaw under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Motion to Strike down the fee of $875.00, and Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Interested Party, Robert Shaw, pro se. (Dkt. 221 ). The Defendants shall have through May 20, 2015 in which to respond to the motion for contempt and for other relief filed by Mr. Shaw on October 1, 2014. Mr. Shaw shall then have through June 11, 2015 in which to reply. Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/25/2015.(MGG) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
224 MOTION for an Order to Practice Law in Indiana, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Entry, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Envelope)(MGG) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
225 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to May 20, 2015 re 224 MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO PRACTICE LAW IN INDIANA, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Craig, Darren) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
226 Entry Discussing Selected Matters − The motion for extension of time [dkt 225 ] is granted. The defendant shall have through shall have through May 20, 2015 in which to respond to the motion for contempt and for other relief filed by Robert Shaw on October 1, 2014. Mr. Shaw shall then have through June 11, 2015 in which to reply. Mr. Shaw's motion for permission to practice law in the State of Indiana [dkt 224 ] is denied because that is a measure which this Court cannot order, whether in conjunction with this lawsuit or otherwise. Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/21/2015. (MGG) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
227 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants Motion for more Time, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Envelope)(AH) (Entered: 04/23/2015)
228 MOTION for Contempt of Court, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C) (BGT) (Entered: 04/27/2015)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 05/10/2020 01:25 PM EDT 20 of 20

04/27/2015 05/04/2015 05/20/2015 07/09/2015 09/11/2015
09/25/2015 01/05/2018 01/09/2018 01/25/2018
04/30/2019 05/08/2019

229 ORDER denying 227 Motion for an extension of time as it has been construed as a request that the court reconsider the Order granting motion for extension of time because the modest extension of time was warranted. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/27/2015 (dist made) (CBU) (Entered: 04/27/2015)
230 Plaintiff Answering Court Order to Seek Relief, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. c/s (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(CKM) (Entered: 05/05/2015)
231 RESPONSE in Opposition re 228 MOTION , filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Craig, Darren) (Entered: 05/20/2015)
232 MOTION for Judgment, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. No c./s. (Attachments: # 1 Attachments, # 2 Envelope)(MGG) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
233 ENTRY − ON PENDING MOTIONS; This matter is before the Court on several matters: A Motion for Contempt of Court against the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, Motion for Contempt of Court and Motion for Judgment filed by Interested Party Robert M. Shaw. There has been no order issued in this case which permits Mr. Shaw to obtain any of the relief sought in his post−judgment motions. Accordingly, Mr. Shaw's Motions Filing No. 221 Filing No. 228 and Filing No. 232 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/11/2015. Copy Mailed. (CKM) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
234 Letter regarding case from ROBERT M. SHAW. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (BGT) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
235 MOTION Regarding Indiana Supreme Court filed by non−party Andrew U.D. Straw. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Envelope) (MEJ) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
236 Entry on Pending Motion − 235 Motion Regarding Indiana Supreme Court is denied. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/9/2018. (MEJ) (Entered: 01/09/2018)
237 ENTRY − Mr. Straw should submit any communications on paper for filing by the Clerk's Office. If he communicates with Clerk's Office or Court staff members by other means, those communications will not be treated as "filings" with the Court, and the Court will be under no obligation to respond. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/25/2018. (Copy mailed to Andrew Straw) (MEJ) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
238 MOTION to Reopen Case and MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Indiana University Health Letter to Robert Shaw dated 4/26/19, # 2 Envelope)(NAD) Modified on 4/30/2019 (NAD). (Entered: 04/30/2019)
239 ORDER − DENYING 238 MOTION TO REOPEN CASE. Mr. Shaw seeks to reopen this closed class action lawsuit so that he can pursue summary judgment against Defendant, The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners ("the Board"). Mr. Shaw's motion must be denied for several reasons. First, Mr. Shaw is not a member of the plaintiff class, therefore, he lacks standing to seek the relief which is sought in this post−judgment motion. The final judgment entered on October 6, 2011 did not award Mr. Shaw any relief, did not adjudicate any claim asserted by Mr. Shaw, and did not create or modify conditions under which Mr. Shaw would become licensed to practice law in the State of Indiana. Even if Mr. Shaw were a member of the class, he could not individually litigate the filed motion. (See Order.) For the reasons stated above, Mr. Shaw's Motion to reopen this case, (Dkt. 238 ), is DENIED. Copies per distribution list. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/8/2019. (NAD) (Entered: 05/08/2019)

Case #: 1:09−cv−00842−TWP−MJD

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

AMANDA PERDUE on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, and ACLU OF INDIANA - INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS in their official capacities,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD ) ) ) ) ) )

ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS

This matter is before the Court on several matters: a Motion for Contempt of Court against

the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, (Filing. No. 221), Motion for Contempt of Court

(Filing. No. 228), and Motion for Judgment (Filing No. 232) filed by Interested Party Robert M.

Shaw (“Mr. Shaw”). For the reasons stated below, the Motions must be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

This lawsuit began in 2009 when Plaintiff Amanda Perdue sued the Indiana State Board of

Law Examiners contending that they were violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)

by requiring applicants to the Indiana bar to answer questions about their mental health history.

The ACLU of Indiana – Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis Chapter later joined the

lawsuit as a plaintiff. Counsel of the ACLU of Indiana represented both Plaintiffs. (Filing No. 4,

Filing No. 39, and Filing No. 86.) This Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class and the

class definition includes:

[A]ll persons who will file an application to take the Indiana bar examination for which any of the following are true: they have been diagnosed, since the age of 16 until the present, with or treated for any mental, emotional, or nervous disorder they have a mental, emotional, or nervous condition or impairment which if untreated could affect their ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner. (Filing No. 192 at 1.) On October 6, 2011, this Court entered a Judgment that enjoined the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners from using certain questions on the Indiana bar examination. (Filing No. 193 at 1–2.) Mr. Shaw seeks various forms of injunctive relief from the Court including a finding of contempt against the members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, his admission to the Board under the ADA, striking down the fee of $875.00 which he alleges prevents out of state applicants and people on Supplemental Security Income from practicing law in Indiana based on limited income, and summary judgment “based on the fact of previous orders.” Mr. Shaw also assets that he has recovered from a blood clot on the brain but is under doctors’ orders not to take stressful tests, he has urination problems related to his diabetes, and he may have to undergo a sleep apnea test. (Filing No. 232.)
II. DISCUSSION The Court is unable to entertain Mr. Shaw’s motions for several reasons. First, Mr. Shaw is not a member of the plaintiff class. His motion to join the class prior to entry of final judgment was denied as Mr. Shaw did not recite any mental health dimension and the Court found he was not a member of the defined class. (See Filing No. 135 and Filing No. 137.) Further, no motion to intervene has been filed since entry of final judgment. Second, the final judgment entered on October 6, 2011 did not award Mr. Shaw any relief, did not adjudicate any claim asserted by Mr. Shaw, and did not create or modify conditions under which Mr. Shaw would become licensed to practice law in the State of Indiana. These circumstances have not been altered by any of the postjudgment filings or rulings.
2

Finally, Mr. Shaw lacks standing to seek the relief which is sought in his post-judgment motions. Even if Mr. Shaw were a member of the class, he could not individually litigate the filed motions. The Court certified this lawsuit as a class action and appointed counsel to represent the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Class counsel represents both the named Plaintiffs and the class. (See Filing No. 4, Filing No. 39, and Filing No. 86.) Therefore, only class counsel may seek relief for the class because individual class members “lack standing to individually litigate matters relating to the class action.” McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1166 (10th Cir. 1991). Mr. Shaw cannot overlay his personal circumstances and desires on the relief awarded to the plaintiff class in this case, instead, he must initiate a separate action for his claim that he has suffered discrimination because of his physical disabilities.
III. CONCLUSION There has been no order issued in this case which permits Mr. Shaw to obtain any of the relief sought in his post-judgment motions. Accordingly, Mr. Shaw’s Motions (Filing No. 221, Filing No. 228 and Filing No. 232) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED. Date: 9/11/2015
DISTRIBUTION: Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA
kfalk@aclu-in.org
Anthony W. Overholt FROST BROWN TODD LLC
aoverholt@fbtlaw.com
Darren A. Craig FROST BROWN TODD LLC
dcraig@fbtlaw.com
3

Robert M. Shaw 1215 North Jefferson Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46201
4

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 239 Filed 05/08/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2430

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

AMANDA PURDUE, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, ACLU OF INDIANA–INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW–INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, in their official capacities,
Defendants.
ROBERT M. SHAW, Interested Party.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE

This matter is before the Court on a motion to reopen this case filed by Interested Party

Robert Shaw (“Mr. Shaw”) (Dkt. [238]). This lawsuit began in 2009 when Plaintiff Amanda

Perdue sued the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners contending that they were violating the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, by requiring applicants to the Indiana

bar to answer questions about their mental health history. The ACLU of Indiana–Indiana

University School of Law–Indianapolis Chapter later joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff. This Court

granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class. See Dkt. [84]. Class counsel of the ACLU of Indiana

represented both Plaintiffs. On October 6, 2011, this Court entered a Judgment that enjoined the

Indiana State Board of Law Examiners from using certain questions on the Indiana bar

examination. This action has been closed since October 6, 2011 when closed judgment was

entered. See Dkt. [193].

Mr. Shaw seeks to reopen this closed class action lawsuit so that he can pursue summary

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 239 Filed 05/08/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2431
judgment against Defendant, The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners (“the Board”). Mr. Shaw states that he has a Master’s degree in Law and Juris Doctorate degree from Novus University. He believes the Board is prejudiced against him because he suffers from diabetes (which causes him to urinate frequently) and because his law degree is from Novus University. In particular, Mr. Shaw writes that he has “found the Board to be prejudice [sic] concerning Novus University degrees, but the Plaintiff points out Novus was wrongfully called a Diploma Mill by Touro University an ABA school…” Dkt. 238 at 2. He seeks summary judgment relief in this action because “the Court knows all the issues.” Id. at 3.
Mr. Shaw’s motion must be denied for several reasons. First, Mr. Shaw is not a member of the plaintiff class, therefore, he lacks standing to seek the relief which is sought in this postjudgment motion. The final judgment entered on October 6, 2011 did not award Mr. Shaw any relief, did not adjudicate any claim asserted by Mr. Shaw, and did not create or modify conditions under which Mr. Shaw would become licensed to practice law in the State of Indiana. Even if Mr. Shaw were a member of the class, he could not individually litigate the filed motion. The Court certified this lawsuit as a class action and appointed counsel to represent the class. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Class counsel represents both the named Plaintiffs and the class. (See Dkt. [4], Dkt. [39], and Dkt. [86].) Therefore, only class counsel may seek relief for the class because individual class members “lack standing to individually litigate matters relating to the class action.” McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1166 (10th Cir. 1991). Finally, the Court notes that it has previously notified Mr. Shaw that he must initiate a separate action for his claim that he has suffered discrimination because of his physical disabilities. He will also have to litigate his concerns of bias against his law school by filing a new action.
2

Case 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD Document 239 Filed 05/08/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2432
For the reasons stated above, Mr. Shaw’s Motion to reopen this case, (Dkt. [238]), is DENIED.
SO ORDERED. Date: 5/8/2019
DISTRIBUTION: Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA kfalk@aclu-in.org Anthony W. Overholt FROST BROWN TODD LLC (Indianapolis) aoverholt@fbtlaw.com Darren Andrew Craig FROST BROWN TODD LLC (Indianapolis) dcraig@fbtlaw.com Robert M. Shaw 1215 North Jefferson Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46201
3

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ACLU of Indiana – Indiana University

)

School of Law – Indianapolis Chapter; and )

AMANDA PERDUE, on their own behalf )

and on behalf of a class of those similarly )

situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE )

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW

)

EXAMINERS, in their official capacities, )

)

Defendants.

)

)

Cause No. 1:09-cv-842-TWP-MJD

ENTRY ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Mental illness is pervasive in our society. Studies show that up to 26.2% of the adult

population suffers from a diagnosable mental disorder. Many people thrive despite their

affliction, and their success has eradicated some of the stigma associated with mental illness.

For others, though, mental illness can be personally and professionally crippling. Moreover,

mental illness disproportionately affects lawyers.1 Given the extraordinary rigors and

responsibilities of being a lawyer, the majority of states – including Indiana – screen bar

applicants for potential mental health problems.

To that end, Defendants, the individual members of the Indiana State Board of Law

Examiners (“Defendant” or “Board”), require Indiana bar admission applicants to answer a range

1Certain mental illnesses occur more frequently among attorneys than the public at large and major depression, for example, affects attorneys “at nearly four times the rate of the general population”. Report of Martin H. Williams, Ph.D. (Dkt. 158-3 at 3).

of stringent questions about their medical history and fitness to practice law. In the Court’s view, the Board would be derelict in its duty if it did not question bar applicants about their fitness to practice law. However, the Board’s questions are some of the most probing and broadly-worded in the nation. Through this entry, the Court must answer: Do any of the Board’s questions go too far?
On this point, Plaintiffs – Amanda Perdue (“Perdue”) and the ACLU Student Chapter of the Indiana University School of Law (“ACLU”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) – contend that four of the bar application questions (i.e. Questions 22 through 25) violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).2 The Board disagrees, arguing that these questions are lawful and reasonably necessary “to prevent a direct threat to the public.” (Dkt. 157 at 2). This matter is now before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. The parties have thoroughly briefed the issues and oral argument was held on August 24, 2011. For the reasons set forth, Plaintiffs’ Motion (Dkt. 145) is GRANTED with respect to Question 23 but DENIED with respect to Questions 22, 24, and 25. Conversely, the Board’s Motion (Dkt. 155) is GRANTED with respect to Questions 22, 24, and 25 but DENIED with respect to Question 23.
Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.Com, Inc., 476 F.3d
2In the summary judgment briefing, Plaintiffs offered no meaningful argument that Question 26 violates the ADA. Therefore, the Court will not address this issue in detail. Suffice it to say, the Court believes that this question is appropriate under the ADA.
2

487, 489-90 (7th Cir. 2007). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews “the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). However, “[a] party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may not rest on its pleadings, but must affirmatively demonstrate, by specific factual allegations, that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires trial.” Hemsworth, 476 F.3d at 490 (citation omitted). “In much the same way that a court is not required to scour the record in search of evidence to defeat a motion for summary judgment, nor is it permitted to conduct a paper trial on the merits of a claim.” Ritchie v. Glidden Co., 242 F.3d 713, 723 (7th Cir. 2001) (citation and internal quotations omitted). “[N]either the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties nor the existence of some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” Chiaramonte v. Fashion Bed Group, Inc., 129 F.3d 391, 395 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
Here, the Court is faced with cross-motions for summary judgment. However, these motions are not subject to a unique standard. “In such situations, courts must consider each party’s motion individually to determine if that party has satisfied the summary judgment standard.” Tippecanoe Associates, LLC v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., 2009 WL 798745, at *3 (S.D. Ind. March 20, 2009) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
Background A. Mechanics of the Indiana bar application process3
3The application process is actually far more detailed than what is presented in this entry. However, for the sake of economy, the Court will limit its background section to only the most relevant portions of the process.
3

As way of background, the Indiana Supreme Court established the Board to certify
applicants for admission to the Indiana bar. Accordingly, the Board must “inquire into and
determine the character, fitness and general qualifications to be admitted to practice law as a
member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Indiana.” The term “fitness” relates to the “physical
and mental suitability of the applicant to practice law in Indiana.” Linda Loepker (“Ms.
Loepker”), the Executive Director of the Board and its designee, testified that the operative
inquiry is whether the applicant has the current fitness to practice law. Technically, the Board
makes a recommendation to the Indiana Supreme Court as to character and fitness of each
applicant, and the Indiana Supreme Court makes a final determination. As a practical matter,
however, the Indiana Supreme Court almost always accepts the Board’s recommendation.
Tellingly, Ms. Loepker is not aware of any situations where the Board gave its character and
fitness stamp of approval, and the Indiana Supreme Court did not accept their recommendation.
Through the bar application, the Board explores numerous areas of the bar applicant’s
life, including his/her mental health. Questions 22 through 25 are at the heart of this dispute.
They read as follows:
22. Have you been diagnosed with or have you been treated for bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder?
23. From the age of 16 years to the present, have you been diagnosed with or treated for any mental, emotional or nervous disorders?
24. Do you have any condition or impairment (including, but not limited to, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental, emotional, or nervous disorder or condition) which in any way currently affects, or if untreated could affect, your ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner?
25. IF YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION 24 IS AFFIRMATIVE, are
4

the limitations or impairments caused by your mental health condition or substance abuse problem reduced or ameliorated because your receive ongoing treatment (with or without medication) or because you participate in a monitoring program? Specifically, Question 22 pertains to “serious” diagnosable mental disorders and is not limited in temporal scope. Question 23 is broader in terms of subject matter, relating to “any” mental or emotional disorders, but narrower in terms of temporal scope, only applying to disorders treated from age 16 to present. Questions 24 and 25 relate to how any mental health conditions could potentially impair an applicant’s current ability to practice law. These questions are preceded by a preamble stating that the questions are designed “to determine the current fitness of an applicant to practice law.” If the applicant answers “Yes” to any of the above questions, he or she must complete form “B-1,” which seeks further information regarding the condition, the diagnosis, the course of treatment, and the treatment provider. Additionally, all applicants must sign a general release of information. If the Board has concerns about the applicant’s fitness, the Board can, but does not always,4 refer the applicant to the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (“JLAP”). In determining whether a JLAP referral is appropriate, the Board considers a multitude of factors, including: how recent the mental health issue was; whether it’s episodic; whether it required continuing treatment; whether it resulted in hospitalization or arrest; and whether it resulted in loss of employment or licensing. The Board informs the applicant of the JLAP referral through a letter. The letter requests that the applicant contact JLAP and sign a release so that the Board can communicate with JLAP.
4In fact, statistics suggest that a JLAP referral is the exception, not the rule. This is especially true where the applicant appears to be handling his/her issues appropriately.
5

JLAP, itself, does not counsel or diagnose the applicant, but instead assists the applicant in obtaining a good assessment to address and hopefully assuage the Board’s concerns. This may entail referring the applicant to an outside provider for an assessment. Once the assessment is completed, JLAP reports back to the Board concerning the applicant’s history, diagnosis, symptoms, treatment recommendations, and prognosis. The Board can accept the applicant, deny the applicant, or offer the applicant a conditional license (which allows admission, providing certain treatment conditions are met).
In the end, very few applicants are denied admission to the Indiana bar due to mental or emotional issues. For instance, of the 649 bar applicants in 2009, 113 answered Questions 22, 23, and/or 24 affirmatively. Of these 113, 17 were referred to JLAP. Out of these 17, four withdrew their applications, and, significantly, none were actually denied admission. B. Law students
The parties disagree on a handful of factual issues pertaining to law students. One thing that they both agree on, however, is that many law students consult mental health professionals. Some students have serious diagnosable disorders; others are just stressed out – presumably an upshot of attempting to learn such mystifying matters as the “Rule Against Perpetuities” in Property Law class. There is no dispute that the academic rigors of law school can be stressful.
Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Cooper, is the Director of Counseling Services at Valparaiso and has counseled thousands of law students. By way of affidavit, Dr. Cooper testified that most law students who seek counseling do so to alleviate anxiety, depression, or personal/family concerns. Of these students, Dr. Cooper opines, less than 0.1% (2-3 students over the course of 23 years) presented psychiatric problems of such severity that he doubted their fitness to practice law.
6

Over 23 years, only 0.1% of Dr. Cooper’s students were unable to function well enough to graduate. Further, according to Dr. Cooper, there remains a stigma still attached to mental illness, and many students worry about having to report counseling on their bar applications, to the point where the mental health-related questions deter students from seeking treatment.
The Board suggests that Dr. Cooper’s statistics – particularly those indicating that less than 0.1% of law students are of doubtful fitness to practice law – are out of sync with reality. After all, in any given year, 26.2% of the adult population has a diagnosable mental disorder and 6% suffer from a serious mental illness. The Board also emphasizes that mental illness is recurring. For instance, the Board’s expert, Dr. Williams, testified that he has evaluated:
numerous attorneys and other licensed professional, including physicians, who functioned at a very high level between depressive episodes, completed their professional training between episodes, only to experience a recurrence once licensed. Thus, it is a myth that major mental disorders are consistently disabling, rendering an individual too impaired to be able to graduate college and law school. The Board also disputes the notion that many students are reticent to seek counseling because they will have to disclose it on their bar applications. According to Ms. Loepker, students view counseling as “not a big deal . . . [i]f I'm stressed at law school, of course, I'm going to go get help.” C. Plaintiffs As mentioned above, there are two Plaintiffs in this action: (1) Amanda Perdue and (2) the ACLU. Perdue graduated from Valparaiso law school in May 2007, was admitted to the Illinois Bar, and worked for a prestigious law firm in Chicago. In January 2008, Perdue made a troubling statement to her friend, which prompted her friend to call the police out of fear for
7

Perdue’s safety. Certain events transpired, and, in August 2008, Perdue sued Porter-Starke Hospital (“Porter-Starke”), using a pseudonym. Ultimately, the court dismissed Perdue’s claim due to her refusal to use her real name in the lawsuit.
In December 2008, Perdue filled out an application to the Indiana bar. In response to Question 15 (an unchallenged question relating to prior litigation), Perdue disclosed the lawsuit against Porter-Starke. Perdue also answered Question 23 affirmatively and filled out the corresponding B-1 form. Upon receiving Perdue’s application, the Board determined that she should contact JLAP. Perdue, however, refused to sign a release to permit JLAP to receive her medical records and refused to meet with JLAP. Soon thereafter, Perdue withdrew her bar application. As it stands, Perdue would like to apply for the Indiana bar again, but objects to Questions 22 through 25 and being referred to JLAP. Perdue maintains that the only relevant consideration is her current fitness to practice law, not her previous diagnoses. In her view, these questions are both unreasonable and unlawful.
Similarly, the ACLU has numerous members who will, at the very least, have to answer Question 23 affirmatively. Those members have remained anonymous throughout the duration of this lawsuit. Like Perdue, the ACLU objects to these questions because they allegedly don’t have any bearing on current fitness to practice law.
Discussion In this dispute, the Board makes two basic arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Questions 22 through 25; and (2) standing issues aside, the questions are nonetheless permissible under the ADA. Plaintiffs counter that, first, they have standing to challenge the questions, and, second, the questions are impermissible under the
8

ADA.

Normally, the Court would be inclined to address the threshold standing issue in

detail before turning to the ADA-related legal issues. Under these unique circumstances,

however, the Court has resolved that the simpler approach is to first analyze the lawfulness of

Questions 22 through 25 under the ADA. In doing so, the Court finds that Question 23 violates

the ADA, while Questions 22, 24, and 25 are permissible. In light of this ruling, the Court only

needs to address whether any of the Plaintiffs have standing to challenge Question 23. The

Court finds that, at the very least, the ACLU has standing to challenge this question. The

Court’s analysis follows.

A. Do Questions 22 through 25 violate the ADA?

1. Title II of the ADA

Congress enacted the ADA to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for

the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12101. This

case falls under Title II of the ADA, which relates to disability discrimination by public entities.

Specifically, Title II provides, in relevant part, that “no qualified individual with a disability

shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of

the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any

such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. A public entity includes “any department, agency, special

purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government.” 42 U.S.C. §

12131(1)(B). Courts have uniformly agreed that entities that license and regulate attorneys are

public entities for purposes of the ADA. See, e.g., Ware v. Wyoming Bd. of Law Examiners, 973

F. Supp. 1339, 1352 (D. Wyo. 1997); Ellen S. v. Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners, 859 F. Supp.

1489, 1493 n. 4 (S.D. Fla.1994). And, here, the parties do not dispute that the Board is a public

9

entity subject to Title II of the ADA. Because Title II applies to “qualified individuals with a disability,” the Court must first
determine if Plaintiffs are “disabled” for purposes of the ADA. Under the ADA, “disability” is defined as: (1) “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual”; (2) “a record of such an impairment”; or (3) “being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) (emphasis added). A person is “‘regarded as having such an impairment’ if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3). Plaintiffs argue that because they must answer certain challenged questions affirmatively, they are “disabled” under the ADA, as the Board imposes additional requirements on them due to their mental health history. In other words, Plaintiffs are “disabled” due to “an actual or perceived . . . mental impairment.” Id. The Court agrees with this reasoning, and, notably, the Board does not meaningfully dispute it.
Under Title II of the ADA, the prohibition against discrimination extends to “qualified individual[s] with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). The ADA defines the term to include:
an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.
Id (emphasis added). Plaintiffs allege that, in this context, the “essential eligibility requirements” refer to bar admission eligibility. Plaintiffs are individuals who wish to take the
10

bar exam without responding to the mandatory questions pertaining to mental health. Removal of the questions will allow them to participate in the bar application process without answering these questions. In this sense, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs are “qualified individuals with a disability.” While the Board may dispute this position, it has failed to present sufficient authority or argument to support its position.5
Significantly, the implementing regulations of the ADA prohibit a public entity, such as the Board, from administering “a licensing or certification program in a manner that subjects qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(6) (emphasis added). Similarly, a public entity is prohibited from imposing or applying “eligibility criteria that screen out an individual with a disability . . . from fully and equally enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity being offered.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8) (emphasis added). “This tend-to-screen out concept . . . makes it discriminatory to impose policies or criteria that, while not creating a direct bar to individuals with disabilities, diminish any individual’s chances of such participation.” Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 974 F. Supp. 106, 134-35 (D. Mass. 1997) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
Importantly, here, questions of public safety are potentially involved. Accordingly, the determination of whether an applicant meets “essential eligibility requirements” involves consideration of whether the individual with a disability poses a “direct threat to his own health and safety or that of others.” Bodenstab v. County of Cook, 569 F.3d 651, 658 (7th Cir. 2009)
5At oral arguments, counsel for the Board maintained that Plaintiffs are not qualified individuals with disabilities. However, this point was not fleshed out in the Board’s briefing.
11

(citation and internal quotations omitted. Specifically, the regulations provide that a public
entity is:
not required to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of the public accommodation, if that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.
28 C.F.R. Pt. 35, App. B (emphasis added). The determination that a person poses such a threat
may not be based on generalizations or stereotypes about the effects of a particular disability. Id.
Instead, it must be based on:
an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical evidence or on the best available objective evidence, to determine: the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures will mitigate the risk.
Id. According to the Board, the challenged questions are “reasonably necessary to determine
whether an applicant possesses the current fitness to practice law.” (Dkt. 157 at 22).
Notably, courts throughout the country have, with virtual unanimity, ruled that the ADA
applies to questions posed to applicants by legal licensing boards. In other words, the Board does
not have carte blanche to pry into every crevice of the bar applicant’s life, as the ADA prohibits at
least some disability-related inquiries. See, e.g., Clark v. Va. Bd. of Law Examiners, 880 F. Supp.
430, 446 (E.D. Va. 1995) (“Question 20(b)’s broadly worded mental health question discriminates
against disabled applicants by imposing additional eligibility criteria”); Ellen S., 859 F. Supp. at
1493-94 (Florida’s mental health questions “discriminate against Plaintiffs by subjecting them to
additional burdens based on their disability.”); In re Underwood, 1993 WL 649283, at *1-2 (Me.
Dec. 7, 1993) (requirement that applicants answer mental health questions discriminates on the
12

basis of disability and imposes eligibility criteria that unnecessarily screen out individuals with disabilities); In re Petition and Questionnaire for Admission to the Rhode Island Bar, 683 A.2d 1333, 1336 (R.I. 1996) (“the ADA applies to State Bar admissions”); Medical Society of New Jersey v. Jacobs, 1993 WL 413016, at *7 (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 1993) (case involving state agency that licenses physicians; “these regulations prohibit the imposition of extra burdens on qualified individuals with disabilities when those burdens are unnecessary . . . [y]et this is exactly what the Board is doing.”); Doe v. Nominating Commission for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, 906 F. Supp. 1534, 1544-45 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (ruling that certain questions posed to judicial applicants were overbroad and thus violated the ADA).
2. Challenged Questions Certainly, the Board’s permissible zone of inquiry into applicants’ lives is not limitless; however, both the applicable law and common sense suggest that the Board is entitled to some leeway. After all, clients entrust their attorneys with their money, their property, their familial status, and, often, their freedom. Obviously, an attorney in the throes of a debilitating bout of mental illness could wreak havoc on his clients’ lives. In this sense, certain attorneys with mental illnesses could pose a “direct threat” to their clients – that is, “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.” 28 C.F.R. Pt. 35, App. B. For this reason, the Board is well within its rights to make certain inquiries into bar applicants’ character and fitness. Nonetheless, the Board’s questions must stay within the confines of the ADA. To summarize, the ADA prohibits the use of licensing procedures that “screen out or tend to screen out” individuals defined as disabled under the ADA, unless the screening criteria are
13

“necessary” to the service being offered. Essentially, the Court must resolve whether the challenged questions are “necessary” to determine whether the bar applicant poses a “direct threat.” The Board argues that all of the challenged questions are necessary. Plaintiffs, of course, vehemently disagree, claiming that the challenged questions violate the ADA because they are too invasive, too broad, and too unfocused. To make its determination, the Court will analyze the challenged questions in turn.
i. Question 22 To reiterate, Question 22 asks the applicant: “Have you ever been diagnosed with or have you been treated for bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder?” Significantly, this question is similar to questions that have been upheld by district courts in Texas and Virginia. See Applicants v. Texas State Bd. of Law Examiners, 1994 WL 923404 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 1994) (upholding limited inquiry into whether applicant has been diagnosed with or treated for “bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder” within the last 10 years); O’Brien v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, 1998 WL 391019 (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 1998) (denying preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the following question: “Within the past five years, have you been diagnosed with or have you been treated for any of the following: schizophrenia or any other psychotic disorder, delusional disorder, bipolar or manic depressive mood disorder, major depression, antisocial personality disorder, or any other condition which significantly impaired your behavior, judgment, understanding, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to function in school, work or other important life activities?”). The Court generally agrees with these decisions. As the Western District of Texas reasoned in Applicants:
14

Bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, and psychotic disorders are serious mental illnesses that may affect a person’s ability to practice law. People suffering from these illnesses may suffer debilitating symptoms that inhibit their ability to function normally. The fact that a person may have experienced an episode of one of these mental illnesses in the past but is not currently experiencing symptoms does not mean that the person will not experience another episode in the future or that the person is currently fit to practice law. Indeed, a person suffering from one of these illnesses may have extended periods between episodes, possibly as much as ten years for bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. Although a past diagnosis of the mental illness will not necessarily predict the applicant’s future behavior, the mental health history is important to provide the Board with information regarding the applicant’s insight into his or her illness and degree of cooperation in controlling it through counseling and medication. In summary, inquiry into past diagnosis and treatment of the severe mental illnesses is necessary to provide the Board with the best information available with which to assess the functional capacity of the individual.
Id. at *3 (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs counter that, unlike the questions in Applicants and O’Brien, Question 22 is
unlimited in terms of temporal scope. However, the Board had a sound basis for its decision to
craft a temporally broad question, given the undisputed evidence that mental illnesses tend to recur
throughout a person’s lifetime. Since Question 22 involves “serious” mental illnesses that could
recur, the Court finds that the unlimited temporal scope of Question 22 does not run afoul of the
ADA.
ii. Question 23
Question 23 is quite possibly the most expansive bar application question in the country. It
asks the applicant: “From the age of 16 years to the present, have you been diagnosed with or
treated for any mental, emotional or nervous disorders?” No court has ever upheld a question
of this breadth. See, e.g., Clark, 880 F. Supp. at 446 (deeming the following question improper
under the ADA: “Have you within the past five (5) years, been treated or counseled for a mental,
15

emotional or nervous disorder[]?”); Ellen S., 859 F. Supp. at 1494 (ruling that plaintiffs stated a claim under the ADA related to the following question: “Have you ever consulted a psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health counselor or medical practitioner for any mental, nervous or emotional condition, drug or alcohol use?”). The Court generally agrees with the reasoning employed in these cases, particularly Clark.
Question 23 captures a broad swath of information related to less serious mental and emotional problems. Further, the question itself is so open-ended that it could easily put a bar applicant in a confusing bind. For instance, if a first-year law student was feeling some natural anxiety about his upcoming Property Law final exam and sought out counseling to enhance his ability to relax, would he have to answer Question 23 affirmatively? The Court isn’t sure. More to the point, why would such a student present concerns for the Board?
Simply stated, Question 23 is too broad, and the available statistics appear to reinforce this point. In 2009, 94 applicants answered Question 23 affirmatively, but, in total, only 17 applicants were even referred to JLAP. Clearly, Question 23 is yielding a considerable number of false positives (i.e. flagging applicants that are unproblematic). Moreover, it is worth noting that the time frame used in Question 23 – from the age of 16 forward – is arbitrary, given that bar applicants’ ages vary greatly. For instance, if the applicant is 50 years old, it stands to reason that his mental health status at the age of 16 is not a very good indicator of his current mental fitness to practice law. Finally, assuming the bar applicant answers the questions honestly, it is altogether unclear what useful information is extracted from this question that isn’t extracted from Questions 22, 24, or 25. For these reasons, the Court believes that Question 23, in its current form, is overly broad, not reasonably contemplated to capture “direct threats,” and, thus, improper under the
16

ADA.6
iii. Questions 24 and 25
To reiterate, Questions 24 and 25 pose the following inquiries:
(24) Do you have any condition or impairment (including, but not limited to, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental, emotional, or nervous disorder or condition) which in any way currently affects, or if untreated could affect, your ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner?
(25) IF YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION 24 IS AFFIRMATIVE, are the limitations or impairments caused by your mental health condition or substance abuse problem reduced or ameliorated because your receive ongoing treatment (with or without medication) or because you participate in a monitoring program?
Undoubtedly, these related questions are narrowly focused on the current time period. So, at first
blush, it is unclear why Plaintiffs included these queries in this lawsuit. Throughout this litigation,
Plaintiffs have insisted that the bar applications should single-mindedly focus on the applicants’
current ability to practice law, and these questions do just that.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs argue that these questions are still too broad. For instance, an
applicant who is being treated for a mental disorder and functioning well would have to answer
Question 24 affirmatively. But, because that applicant is in a stable condition, he would not pose a
significant risk. Therefore, Questions 24 and 25 necessarily captures applicants who are not actual
“direct threats,” meaning these questions are outside the parameters of the ADA. Moreover,
Plaintiffs argue that these questions are not particularly useful, as, in 2009, only 11 of the 649
6Perhaps a narrower version of Question 23 would comply with the ADA. Regardless, the Court’s decision is to determine the lawfulness of Question 23 – not to reformulate an inquiry that would comply with the ADA. See Clark, 880 F. Supp. at 446
17

applicants answered “Yes” to Question 24 (thus triggering the need to answer Question 25). The Court respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ argument that these
questions lack efficacy because few people answer them affirmatively is unpersuasive. The Court cannot rule that a bar application question fails to comply with the ADA – and thus warrants enjoinment – simply because a low percentage of applicants answer “Yes.” Moreover, the Board’s evidence shows that even if the applicant is seeking treatment, “all available treatments have their limitations and there are few [mental] disorders where it is possible to be cured.” (Dkt. 158-1 at 2). Finally, if the Court adopted Plaintiffs’ position, then the Board would be required to jettison the portion of the inquiry related to treatment. However, this is an important part of the question. Without it, the question is reduced to a mere subjective inquiry into the applicant’s belief about his or her own current ability to practice law. But this isn’t much of an inquiry. Obviously, the vast majority of, if not all, bar applicants believe they are fit to practice law. In sum, because Questions 24 and 25 appropriately bear on the applicant’s current ability to practice law, they are permissible under the ADA.
3. Facial Challenge All along, Plaintiffs have presented this lawsuit as a facial challenge to Questions 22 through 25. In a final attempt to defeat Plaintiffs’ case, the Board argues that the facial nature of the claims presents insurmountable obstacles. In essence, a facial challenge is a claim that a statute or regulation is always unlawful. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for a Great Ore., 515 U.S. 687, 699-700 (1995). This type of challenge is “the most difficult . . . to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [law] would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987).
18

Using these principles, the Board argues that Plaintiffs’ claims cannot survive a facial challenge because these questions “were proper as to . . . Perdue and other specific applicants” who have encountered problems practicing law, some of which presumably stem from mental health issues. (Dkt. 179 at 8). The Court respectfully disagrees for two reason. First, in the Court’s view, the Board’s argument ignores context. Specifically, the challenged questions are merely the first step in a potentially protracted and individualized process used to assess the fitness of the applicant. In other words, certain questions – like Question 23 – might be appropriate to ask after other, less invasive questions have triggered the need for a more searching review of the candidate, but such questions would be inappropriate to ask the applicant right off the bat. Second, the Board’s argument appears to be premised on a faulty assumption: That is, a question is automatically appropriate if it sometimes unearths useful information. If this were the standard, the Board could ask applicants’ almost any question, no matter how invasive. For instance, the question “Have you ever gone to the hospital, and, if so, why?” undoubtedly has the potential to unearth useful information. However, as the Board would presumably concede, such an all-encompassing question would violate the ADA. Thus, notwithstanding the facial nature of Plaintiffs’ challenge, the Court still finds that Question 23 is inappropriate to ask as an initial inquiry to all bar applicants. B. Do Plaintiffs Have Standing?
The Board also argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs lack standing. Given the Court’s above ruling, it only need to address whether any of the Plaintiffs have standing to challenge Question 23. To make this determination, a review of general standing principles is instructive. Standing determines “the power of the court to entertain the
19

suit.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Specifically, Article III of the United States Constitution limits the federal courts’ subject matter jurisdiction to “actual cases or controversies,” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997) (citation and internal quotations omitted), and it is well-settled that “standing is an essential component of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.” Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck & Co, 572 F.3d 440, 443 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). To demonstrate standing, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving three elements:
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in fact’– an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) ‘actual or imminent,’ not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’ Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be ‘fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.’ Third, it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’ Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (alterations and internal citations omitted). Here, the Court finds that, at the very least, the ACLU has standing to challenge Question 23. An organization such as the ACLU has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (1) “its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right;” (2) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose;” and (3) “neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation in the lawsuit of each of the individual members.” Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Com’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). Here, only the first element – whether its members have standing individually – is disputed. On this
20

point, to have associational standing, only one member of the organizations needs to be injured
or threatened with injury. Disability Rights Wisconsin, Inc. v. Walworth County Bd. of
Supervisors, 522 F.3d 796, 802 (7th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
By way of their reply brief, the ACLU attached three supplemental affidavits stating as
follows:
I have reviewed the other questions on the application for the Indiana bar and I do not believe that when the time comes for me to complete and submit the application that I will answer the questions, with the exception of question 23, in a manner that would mention my history of receiving treatment for mental, emotional, or nervous disorders or that would raise concerns that would lead to inquiries about, or discovery of, my history of receiving treatment for mental, emotional, or nervous disorders.
(See, e.g., Dkt. 171-1 at 3). In the Court’s view, these affidavits are adequate to establish
standing to challenge Question 23.
To clarify this determination, it is worth discussing Perdue’s standing problems. The
Board argues that Perdue lacks standing because even if all of the challenged questions were
jettisoned from the bar application, Perdue would’ve answered Question 15 (an unchallenged
question concerning prior litigation) affirmatively. In turn, this answer would’ve revealed
information about her mental health condition and thus triggered additional Board scrutiny. So,
as a practical matter, even if Perdue is victorious in this lawsuit, she would still have to reveal
the same underlying information and endure the same burdensome process. See United States v.
Jester, 139 F.3d 1168 (7th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff lacked standing because, even if his
constitutional arguments were valid, he would not personally benefit from prevailing). In other
words, if Perdue were to prevail in this lawsuit, it is unclear what she would actually gain (other
than perhaps the subjective “psychic benefit” that accompanies victory). See Diaz v. Duckworth,
21

143 F.3d 345, 347 (7th Cir.1998) (“A basic principle of standing is that a person is not entitled to litigate in a federal court unless he can show a reasonable probability of obtaining a tangible benefit from winning . . .”) (emphasis added).7
The ACLU affiants avoided this standing roadblock by attaching supplementary affidavits specifying that certain individual members will not have to disclose any information concerning their mental health histories in responding to the bar application, other than through Question 23. The Board counters that the Court should disregard these affidavits because it has not been given the chance to depose these anonymous ACLU members to verify the accuracy of their sworn affidavits. The Court, however, is not persuaded. Law students – future bar applicants – certainly have the reading comprehension skills to review bar application questions and accurately testify how they will answer them. Thus, for these reasons, the Court finds that the ACLU has standing to challenge Question 23.
Conclusion Perhaps no set of bar application questions could strike the perfect balance between detecting problematic bar applicants and respecting applicants’ privacy. To borrow statistical lexicon, there will always be some Type I errors (false positives, i.e. flagging unproblematic
7It is also worth noting that, from what the Court gathered, there is no evidence to suggest that any Plaintiff in this case would answer Question 22 affirmatively. For this reason, no Plaintiff has standing to contest this question. After all, Plaintiffs repeatedly emphasize that “[h]aving to answer the questions affirmatively is the injury that binds the class.” (Dkt. 171 at 15) (emphasis added). In the end, though, this point is academic, given the Court’s above ruling.
22

applicants) and some Type II errors (false negatives, i.e. failing to flag a problematic applicant). While the Board has no doubt endeavored to strike the right balance, in the Court’s view, Question 23 simply goes too far and strays outside of the parameters of the ADA. For this reason, Plaintiffs’ Motion (Dkt. 145) is GRANTED with respect to Question 23 but DENIED with respect to Questions 22, 24, and 25. Conversely, the Board’s Motion (Dkt. 155) is GRANTED with respect to Questions 22, 24, and 25 but DENIED with respect to Question 23.
The parties are directed to notify the Court within seven days if entry of Final Judgment is appropriate. If the parties agree that Final Judgment is appropriate, they are directed to submit a mutually agreeable proposed Final Judgment at that time.
SO ORDERED: 09/20/2011
________________________ Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
Copies to:
Darren Andrew Craig FROST BROWN TODD LLC dcraig@fbtlaw.com,jwhitaker@fbtlaw.com Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA kfalk@aclu-in.org,kkendall@aclu-in.org,jmensz@aclu-in.org Anthony W. Overholt FROST BROWN TODD LLC aoverholt@fbtlaw.com,kdickerson@fbtlaw.com
23

 
 Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 1 of 20
CMP,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09−cv−00842−TWP−MJD

ACLU OF INDIANA − INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW − INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER, et al v. THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS Assigned to: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/07/2009 Date Terminated: 10/06/2011 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

AMANDA PERDUE on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated

represented by Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA 1031 East Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46202−3952 (317) 635−4059 x104 Fax: (317) 635−4105 Email: kfalk@aclu−in.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
ACLU OF INDIANA − INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW − INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER

represented by Kenneth J. Falk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS in their official capacities
Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW

represented by Anthony W. Overholt FROST BROWN TODD LLC (Indianapolis) 201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900 P.O. Box 44961 Indianapolis, IN 46244−0961 (317) 237−3936 Fax: (317) 237−3900 Email: aoverholt@fbtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darren Andrew Craig FROST BROWN TODD LLC 201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900 P.O. Box 44961 Indianapolis, IN 46204−0961 317−237−3975 Fax: 317−237−3900 Email: dcraig@fbtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ROBERT M. SHAW 1215 N. Jefferson Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46201 PRO SE

Date Filed # Docket Text

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 2 of 20

07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/13/2009 07/14/2009
07/15/2009
07/20/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009 07/29/2009 08/04/2009
08/08/2009

1 COMPLAINT against THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS filed by JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 application)(DH) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff, JANE DOE. (DH) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
3 RECEIPT #IP013486 in the amount of $350.00 for filing fee. (DH) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
4 Summons Issued as to THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (DH) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiff, JANE DOE. (DH) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
6 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DH) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
7 MOTION to Proeed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit "Jane Doe", # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
8 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 7 MOTION to Proeed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
9 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
10 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 9 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Laura Lee Bowker on behalf of Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
12 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to August 26, 2009 to file response to 9 MOTION to Certify Class, 7 MOTION to Proeed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
13 ORDER granting defts' 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 9 MOTION to Certify Class and 7 MOTION to Proeed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name. Response due by 8/26/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 7/15/2009. (SWM) Modified on 7/15/2009 (SWM). (Entered: 07/15/2009)
14 NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
16 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
17 RETURN of Service by CMRRR, filed by JANE DOE. THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS served on 7/13/2009. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
18 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to August 28, 2009 to file response to 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
19 ORDER denying pltf's 7 Motion to proceed under an anonymous name and to seal affidavit containing actual name. Pltf shall file an amended complaint w/i 14 days that identifies her by name (see Order for other details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 3 of 20

08/10/2009 08/17/2009 08/20/2009 08/20/2009 08/20/2009 08/26/2009 08/28/2009
08/28/2009 08/28/2009 08/28/2009 09/01/2009 09/02/2009 09/03/2009

A. Baker on 8/8/09. (SWM) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
20 ORDER granting defts' 18 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Response due by 8/28/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 8/10/09. (SWM) (Entered: 08/11/2009)
21 ORDER Setting Settlement Conference and Related Deadlines. SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 9/4/2009 10:30 AM in room #234 before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. Confidential settlement statements due three business days prior to the conference (see Order for other details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 8/17/09.(SWM) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
22 OBJECTION to Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name −− Motion for the Court to Review and Reverse Magistrate Judge's Decision by JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
23 MEMORANDUM re 22 Objection − in Support of Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name −− Motion for the Court to Review and Reverse Magistrate Judge's Decision, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 8/21/2009 (DWH). (Entered: 08/20/2009)
24 MOTION for Extension of Time to FIle Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
25 RESPONSE in Opposition re 9 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
26 ORDER granting pltf's 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File amended complaint. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the time within which plaintiff must file an amended complaint that identifies her by name is extended until 14 days after a ruling on her Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name Motion for the Court to Review and Reverse Magistrate Judge pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the event that the Magistrate Judges Order is affirmed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 8/28/2009. (SWM) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
28 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
29 RESPONSE in Opposition re 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
30 MOTION for Extension of Time to September 30, 2009 to file reply to 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 9 MOTION to Certify Class, MOTION for Extension of Time to September 30, 2009 to file response to 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
31 RESPONSE in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Donald G. Banta on behalf of Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Banta, Donald) (Entered: 09/03/2009)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 4 of 20

09/08/2009
09/10/2009
09/16/2009 09/29/2009
09/30/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/09/2009 10/15/2009

33 ORDER granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re 9 MOTION to Certify Class, and 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, ( Reply due by 9/30/2009 ); granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ( Response due by 9/30/2009 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 9/8/2009. (CBU) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
34 ORDER on 9/4/2009, Settlement Conference. Parties appeared in person and by counsel. Settlement discussions were held, but no settlement was reached. Plaintiffs shall serve an updated settlement demand by September 16, 2009. Defendants shall serve a response promptly following the upcoming Board of Law Examiners meeting. The parties shall submit (not file) courtesy copies of the demand/response to the Magistrate Judge at the time of service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 9/10/2009.(SWM) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
35 REPLY in Support of Motion re 7 MOTION to Proeed by Anonymous Name and Motion to Seal Affidavit Containing Actual Name, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
36 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to October 7, 2009 to file reply to 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 9 MOTION to Certify Class UNOPPOSED, filed by Plaintiff JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 9/29/2009 (DWH). (Entered: 09/29/2009)
37 ORDER granting pltf's 36 Motion for extension of time to file reply in support of motion for preliminary injunction and motion for class certification and response in opposition to motion to dismiss to 10/7/09. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 9/30/09. (SWM) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
38 AMENDED COMPLAINT −Class Action against THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Bar Application)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
39 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiff ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
40 NOTICE of Filing of Affidavits by all plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Zoe Meier, # 2 Affidavit Jane Doe) (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
41 Amended MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
42 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 41 Amended MOTION to Certify Class / Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
43 RESPONSE in Opposition re 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Reply Memorandum in Support re 15 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
44 NOTICE of Correction of Certificate of Service, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
45 Reassignment of Case to Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number, 1:09−cv−0842−WTL−JMS, on all future filings in this matter. (DH) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
46 MOTION for Extension of Time to November 16, 2009 to Respond to Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 38 , Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction 43 , and Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Class Certification 41 , filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 5 of 20

10/19/2009 11/03/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/19/2009
11/30/2009 11/30/2009 11/30/2009 11/30/2009 12/01/2009 12/08/2009 12/10/2009

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
47 ORDER granting 46 Motion for Extension of Time to November 16, 2009 to respond to Plaintiff's pending motions. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 10/19/2009. (LBK) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
48 SCHEDULING ORDER: This matter is hereby set for a Hearing on Plaintiff Jane Does Motion for Preliminary Injunction (dkt. 15) on Friday, December 18, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 307 of the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 11/3/2009.(JHO) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
49 REPLY in Support of Motion re 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
50 RESPONSE in Opposition re 41 Amended MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
51 ENTRY FOR NOVEMBER 16, 2009. This cause is set for a telephonic discovery conference on November 19, 2009 at 2:00 P.M. Counsel shall call the Court at 317−229−3670. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/16/2009.(MRI) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
52 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephone Discovery Conference held on 11/19/2009 and parties address Plaintiff's discovery seeking certain anonymous information concerning bar applicants. Defendants will file a motion for protective order by November 30, 2009 addressing both the confidentiality and burden claims. Plaintiff will file a quick response, no reply is necessary. Plaintiff will file a brief sur−reply concerning Defendants' motion to dismiss in light of recent amendments to the complaint also by November 30, 2009. (SWM) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
53 Surreply re 27 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Jane Doe (Supplemental))(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
54 MOTION for Protective Order, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
55 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 54 MOTION for Protective Order and in Opposition to Motion to Compel, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
56 REPLY in Support of Motion re 41 Amended MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Zoe Meier (Supplemental), # 2 Exhibit Interrogatories)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
57 RESPONSE in Opposition re 54 MOTION for Protective Order, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Interrogatories, # 2 Indiana Bar Exam Statistics)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
60 ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS: For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 27 is DENIED **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/8/2009. (DWH) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
58 MOTION for Continuance, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Motion for Continuance)(Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 12/10/2009)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 6 of 20

12/10/2009 12/11/2009 12/11/2009 12/11/2009 12/11/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009
12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/17/2009 12/18/2009 01/04/2010

59 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 58 MOTION for Continuance, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Bowker, Laura) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
61 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE: GRANTED 58 Motion for Continuance. The hearing currently scheduled for Friday, December 18, 2009, is VACATED to be reset under separate Order. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/11/2009. (DWH) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
62 NOTICE of Appearance by Darren Andrew Craig on behalf of Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Craig, Darren) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
63 NOTICE of Appearance by Anthony W. Overholt on behalf of Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
64 REPLY in Support of Motion re 54 MOTION for Protective Order, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Craig, Darren) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
65 MOTION of Withdrawal of Appearance by Laura L. Bowker on behalf of THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Withdrawal for Bowker) (Bowker, Laura) Modified on 12/15/2009 (DWH). (Entered: 12/14/2009)
66 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Banta, Donald) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
67 ENTRY for 12/14/2009: Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (the Motion). [Dkt. 54.] After having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court concludes that oral argument is appropriate. Accordingly, the Motion is set for oral argument on December 28, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 349, United States Courthouse, Indianapolis, Indiana. Defendants will be permitted twenty minutes for opening argument, and five minutes for a reply. Plaintiff will be permitted twenty minutes for a response argument. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/14/09.(SWM) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
68 Unopposed MOTION to Reset Oral Argument to January 8, 2010, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
69 ORDER granting 65 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Laura Lee Bowker withdrawn. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/15/09. (SWM) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
70 ORDER granting 66 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Donald G. Banta withdrawn. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/15/09. (SWM) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
71 ORDER granting defts' 68 Motion to reset Oral Argument currently set for 12/28/2009. Hearing RESET for 1/8/2010 02:30 PM in room #349 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/17/2009. (SWM) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
72 ANSWER to 38 Amended Complaint Answer to Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS.(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
73 ENTRY ON OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE'S ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Doe's Motion to Review and Reverse the Magistrate Judge's Decision 22 is DENIED. Within 14 days of this entry Doe shall file an amended complaint that identifies her by name **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/4/2010.(DWH) (Entered: 01/06/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 7 of 20

01/08/2010 01/18/2010 01/18/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/26/2010 01/26/2010 01/27/2010 01/27/2010 01/28/2010 01/29/2010
01/29/2010

74 ENTRY Following Hearing: On January 8, 2010, the parties appeared by counsel for oral argument on Defendants' Motion for Protective Order [dkt. 54 ]. The Court GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART the Motion for Protective Order. The Court denied Plaintiffs' request for fees. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/8/2010. (See Order) (Court Reporter Fred Pratt.)(TRG) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
75 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Amended Complaint)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
76 NOTICE of Corrections to Motion to File Amended Complaint and Notice of Filing of Omitted Attachment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE (Attachments: # 1 Bar Exam Application − Attachment to 2nd Am. Complaint) (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/18/2010)
77 ORDER granting pltfs' 75 Motion to file Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief shall be filed with the appropriate attachment (see Notice of Correction dkt. 76) by January 25, 2010. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/22/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
78 MARGINAL ENTRY re 76 Notice of Correction: Reviewed by magistrate judge. Please see order on motion to amend granted this date. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/22/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
79 MOTION to Tender Belated Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Amended Complaint, # 3 Attachment to Complaint − Bar Exam Application)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
80 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Summary of CMP)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
81 ORDER granting pltfs' 79 Motion to file belated second amended class action complaint. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/27/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
82 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second Amended) against THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, filed by AMANDA PERDUE and ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter. (Attachments: # 1 Bar Exam Application)(SWM) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
83 SCHEDULING ENTRY: Status/Pretrial Conference set for 3/12/2010 03:00 PM in room #361 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Issued by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/28/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
84 ENTRY ON AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION: GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART 41 Amended Motion to Certify Class. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification 41 is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Perdue. Because the Court is unable to determine whether the ACLU has standing, the Court cannot find that the ACLU is an appropriate class representative. Accordingly, the Amended Motion for Class Certification is DENIED as to the ACLU. Within 21 days of the date of this Entry the ACLU shall file a brief in support of its standing. The Defendants shall have 14 days to respond, and no reply is necessary. If the Court finds that the ACLU has standing, and if the organization still wishes to be a class representative, then the ACLU may file an appropriate motion at that time **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/29/2010. (DWH) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
88 ORDER: CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED AS AMENDED. Dispositive Motions due by 9/27/2010. Counsel and the parties are reminded that they are required to conduct a conference under LR 37.1 in the event of a discovery dispute. If the conference is unsuccessful, and the dispute does not involve a claim of privilege, the parties are advised to request a phone status conference prior to filing any motion to

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 8 of 20

02/01/2010
02/01/2010 02/01/2010 02/03/2010 02/03/2010
02/03/2010 02/08/2010 02/10/2010 02/10/2010 02/12/2010
02/12/2010
02/12/2010 02/12/2010

compel or for protective order. If the dispute has arisen because a party has failed to timely respond to propounded discovery, the propounding party may proceed with a motion to compel without seeking a conference. Additionally, the parties are advised to not only number but to add a descriptive identifier for anyexhibits which are electronically filed (see Order for example and other details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/29/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
85 MOTION to Substitute Corrected Amended Motion for Class Certification with Plaintiff's Actual Name, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Corrected Amended Motion for Class Certification)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
86 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiff AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
87 MOTION for Continuance Status/Pre−Trial Conference, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, JANE DOE, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
89 ORDER granting pltfs' 87 Motion for Continuance of Status/Pretrial Conference. Status/Pretrial Conference RESET for 3/29/2010 10:00 AM in room #361 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/3/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
90 ORDER granting pltfs' 85 Motion to substitute corrected amended motion for class certification with pltf's actual name. Corrected amended motion forclass certification is hereby substituted for their original amended motion for class certification (Docket No. 41). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/3/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
91 CORRECTED AMENDED MOTION for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter and AMANDA PERDUE. (SWM) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
92 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
93 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
94 ANSWER to 82 Amended Complaint, filed by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS.(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 Order on Motion to Certify Class, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Denying Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
96 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 Order on Motion to Certify Class, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Sealed Cover Sheet for Exhibit 1 to Defendant's Brief − Application for Admission and Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Jane Noe Complaint)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
97 SEALED Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion to Reconsider Entry on Amended Motion for Class Certification, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
98 MOTION to Seal Document 97 SEALED Document Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion to Reconsider Entry on Amended Motion for Class Certification,

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 9 of 20

02/16/2010 02/16/2010 02/17/2010 02/24/2010 03/02/2010 03/04/2010 03/05/2010 03/05/2010
03/05/2010 03/08/2010 03/08/2010 03/08/2010

filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Motion to Seal Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion to Reconsider Entry on Amended Motion for Class Certification)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
99 Submission of Memorandum in Support of Standing of the ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
100 ORDER granting 98 Motion to Seal Document 97 Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion to Reconsider Entry on Amended Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/16/2010. (LBK) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
101 ENTRY FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CONFERENCE: On February 17, 2010, the parties appeared in person by counsel for a discovery conference concerning two issues (see Entry for details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/17/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
102 RESPONSE in Opposition re 95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 Order on Motion to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
103 NOTICE of Withdrawal, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE, re 15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
104 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Stipulated Protective Order by ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/04/2010)
105 REPLY in Support of Motion re 95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 Order on Motion to Certify Class, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 03/05/2010)
106 RESPONSE in Opposition re 95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 Order on Motion to Certify Class Defendants' Brief Opposing ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter's Request to be Appointed Class Representative, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Craig, Darren) (Entered: 03/05/2010)
107 ORDER re Parties' 104 Proposed Stipulated Protective Order.The Motion is DENIED, but without prejudice to re−file an amended version if the parties so desire (see Order for details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/5/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 03/05/2010)
108 Witness List −Preliminary, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE, Exhibit List −Preliminary, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
109 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend Pleadings by Adding Additional Parties, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
110 SCHEDULING ENTRY: Status Conference set for 3/15/2010 03:30 PM in Telephonic before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Counsel shall call the Court at the number provided. Issued by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/8/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 03/08/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 10 of 20

03/09/2010
03/10/2010 03/12/2010 03/15/2010
03/15/2010 03/15/2010
03/15/2010
03/16/2010 03/25/2010
03/29/2010 04/07/2010 04/19/2010

111 ORDER granting pltfs' 109 Motion to extend deadline for amending pleadings by adding additional parties to 30 days after the later of the time that this Court issues its ruling on the motions to reconsider class certification and its ruling on whether the ACLU of Indiana Indiana University School of Law Indianapolis Chapter has standing and may serve as a class representative in this cause. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/9/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
112 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Amended Stipulated Protective Order by ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
113 AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 112 APPROVED. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/12/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
114 Submission of Reply Memorandum in Support of Standing of ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Anonymous Ex. 1, # 2 Affidavit Anonymous Ex. 2, # 3 Affidavit Anonymous Ex. 3, # 4 Affidavit Anonymous Ex. 4, # 5 Affidavit Anonymous Ex. 5)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
115 MOTION to Seal Document 116 Submission of Attachment −AGREED, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 3/16/2010 (SWM). (Entered: 03/15/2010)
116 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 3/16/2010 *** SEALED −Cover Sheet for Documents Under Seal, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # (1) Affidavit Exhibit 1, # (2) Affidavit Exhibit 2, # (3) Affidavit Exhibit 3, # (4) Affidavit Exhibit 4, # (5) Affidavit Exhibit 5)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 3/17/2010 (SWM). (Entered: 03/15/2010)
117 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephone Status Conference held on 3/15/2010. The status and development of the action were discussed, and as a result of this conference the following Entry is made pursuant to Rule 16(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is about to file responses on the reconsideration issue under seal. Parties are beginning depositions in the next few weeks. The status/pretrial conference scheduled for March 29, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED and RESET for April 19, 2010 (telephonic) at 3:30 p.m. Counsel to call the court at the number provided. (SWM) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
118 ORDER granting pltfs' 115 Motion to Seal DKT. 116. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/16/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
119 ENTRY ON STANDING, CLASS REPRESENTATION, AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the ACLU has standing and is an appropriate class representative. Accordingly, the ACLU's request to be appointed a class representative is GRANTED. In addition, the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration 95 is DENIED **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/25/2010. (DWH) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
120 SCHEDULING ENTRY: The telephonic status conference set for April 19, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. is converted to an in−person status conference. The parties shall be prepared to update the magistrate judge on settlement negotiations. Issued by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/29/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
121 Exhibit List Preliminary, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, Witness List Preliminary, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Craig, Darren) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
122 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Status Conference held on 4/19/2010. Discussion held regarding discovery, settlement and related matters, and as a result of this conference the following Entry is made pursuant to Rule 16(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Telephonic status conference set for May 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. to discuss case status and scheduling settlement conference. Counsel to call the court at the number provided. (SWM) (Entered:

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 11 of 20

05/19/2010
05/31/2010
06/02/2010 06/02/2010 06/11/2010
06/15/2010 06/17/2010
06/23/2010 06/25/2010 07/02/2010

04/20/2010)
123 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/19/2010. Discovery, settlement and related matters were discussed, and as a result of this conference the following Entry is made pursuant to Rule 16(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Telephonic status is set for June 23, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. by which time the parties will have conducted certain significant depositions, reached stipulations, and continued settlement negotiations. Counsel to call the court at the number provided. (SWM) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
124 ORDER − Previously, the Court took under advisement two discovery issues. [See dkt. 101 .] On the first issue, the Court finds that any probative information that could be uncovered by class−member discovery is outweighed by the significant intrusion upon the class members' privacy. The next issue was the propriety of Defendants' Interrogatories 4−5 and Requests for Production 5−7, all directed to Plaintiff Perdue. To the extent that Ms. Perdue has any other responsive information that has not previously been provided to Defendants, the facial nature of the challenge to Defendants' questions means that the probative value of that information is outweighed by the intrusion upon Ms. Perdue's privacy, and is thus improper. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/31/2010.(TRG) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
125 ENTRY FOR JUNE 2, 2010. This matter is set for a telephonic status conference on June 2, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. Counsel to call the court at 317−229−3670. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/2/2010.(MRI) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
126 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/2/2010. Parties advise they are likely at impasse as to settlement. The magistrate judge requested that they provide courtesy copies of their draft proposals for her review. (SWM) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
127 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants' Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order on Discovery by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. Related document: 124 Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Amanda G. Perdue, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Defendants' First Set of Requests for Production to Amanda G. Perdue, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Amanda G. Perdue, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Response to Defendants' First Set of Request for Production to Amanda G. Perdue)(Craig, Darren) Modified on 6/14/2010 (JHO). (Entered: 06/11/2010)
128 Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr. Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:09−cv−842−WTL−WGH), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (NS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
129 NOTICE REGARDING STATUS CONFERENCE − The Telephonic Status Conference set for June 23,2010, at 3:30 p.m., Indianapolis time (EDT), remains on the calendar for that same day before Magistrate Judge Hussmann at 1:00 p.m., Indianapolis time (EDT). Each counsel wishing to participate in this conference shall individually place a call to the court's bridge line at (812) 434−6403 at the time of the conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 6/17/2010.(NRN) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
130 RESPONSE in Opposition re 127 MOTION for Reconsideration, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
131 Reassignment of Case to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Judge William T. Lawrence no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:09−cv−00842−TWP−WGH), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (MAC) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
132 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr: Status Conference held on 6/23/2010. Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/9/2010 09:15 AM before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. (SMD) (Entered: 07/02/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 12 of 20

07/06/2010 07/26/2010 08/31/2010 08/31/2010 09/06/2010 09/09/2010 09/12/2010 09/15/2010 10/13/2010
10/20/2010 10/21/2010 11/04/2010 11/05/2010
11/05/2010 11/07/2010 11/16/2010

133 REPLY in Support of Motion re 127 MOTION for Reconsideration Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order on Discovery, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Craig, Darren) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
134 MOTION for Injunctive Order, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (TMA) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
135 MOTION to join class action lawsuit, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (DWH) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
136 MOTION for injunctive order, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (DWH) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
137 Entry Concerning Selected Matters: For reason set forth in the Entry the Court DENIES 134 Motion for Injunction; DENIES 135 Motion to Join Class Action Lawsuit; DENIES 136 Motion for Injunction. ***SEE ENTRY*** Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/6/2010. (JD) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
138 MOTION to Place Evidence on Record, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (Attachments: # 1 Evidence)(JD) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
139 Joint MOTION to Modify Case Management Order and Extend Summary Judgment Deadline, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/12/2010)
140 ORDER granting 139 Motion to Modify Case Management Plan. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 9/15/2010. (SMD) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
141 ORDER denying 138 Motion to Place Evidence on Record. The reasons for this ruling are that ROBERT SHAW is not a party to the action, he has no privilege of filing materials as if he was a party, and the information he presents in his motion cannot reasonably advance any aspect of the litigation. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/13/2010. (JD) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
142 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to November 8, 2010 (FURTHER MOTION) to File Summary Judgment Motion, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/20/2010)
143 ORDER granting 142 Motion for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Motion to 11/8/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 10/21/2010. (NRN) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
144 STIPULATION of Facts (First), filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Medical Licensing Renewal)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/04/2010)
145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Loepker deposition, # 2 Exhibit Harrell deposition, # 3 Exhibit Bar Exam Statistics, # 4 Exhibit Williams deposition, # 5 Exhibit Parker deposition, # 6 Exhibit Cooper deposition, # 7 Exhibit Perdue affidavit, # 8 Exhibit Survey state bar applications− Pt 1, # 9 Exhibit Survey state bar applications− Pt 2)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
146 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
147 NOTICE of Expert Disclosure, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/07/2010)
148 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr: Status Conference held on 11/9/2010. By agreement of the parties, filing of final witness and exhibit lists is stayed until a date to be set at next status conference.

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 13 of 20

12/03/2010
12/07/2010 12/18/2010 12/23/2010 01/04/2011
01/06/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011

Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/19/2011 04:30 PM (IP time) before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr. (SMD) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
149 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to January 5, 2011 to file response to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment and to File Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Defendants' Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment)(Craig, Darren) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
150 ORDER granting 149 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 1/15/2011 re 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 12/7/2010. (NRN) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
151 Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:09−cv−842−TWP−MJD), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (JD) (Entered: 12/18/2010)
152 ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER − For the reasons set forth, the Court AFFIRMS 124 Magistrate Judge's May 31, 2010 Order, DENYING the Board's 127 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/23/2010. (JD) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
153 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to 01/19/11 to File Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Extension of Time to 1/19/11 in which to file Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
154 ORDER granting 153 Motion for Extension of Time to File to January 19, 2011, within which to file their Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/6/2011. (JD) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
155 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 01/19/2011)
156 REDACTION to 157 SEALED Brief in Opposition to 145 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of 155 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
157 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 1/20/2011 *** SEALED Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Support of 155 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
158 Designation of Evidence in Support of 155 CROSS− MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Report of George F. Parker, M.D., # 2 Exhibit 2 − Excerpts of Depo of Stewart Cooper, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Report of Martin H. Williams, Ph.D., # 4 Cover Sheet for Sealed Document Ex 4 Filed Under Seal, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Indiana Appln for Admission Upon Examination to Practice Law, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Indiana Appln for Admission on Foreign License, Standard NCBE Form, # 7 Exhibit Alabama Bar Application, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Colorado Bar Application, # 9 Exhibit Maryland Bar Application, # 10 Exhibit 10 − Ohio Bar Application, # 11 Exhibit 11− Texas Bar Application, # 12 Exhibit 12 − Washington Bar Application, # 13 Cover Sheet for Sealed Document Ex 13 Filed Under Seal, # 14 Cover Sheet for Sealed Document Ex 14 Filed Under Seal, # 15 Exhibit 15 − Complaint in Cause No.

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 14 of 20

01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/20/2011 01/27/2011

2:08−cv−227 (N.D. Ind.), # 16 Exhibit 16 − Opinion & Order in Cause No. 2:08−cv−227 (N.D. Ind.), # 17 Exhibit 17 − Amd Complaint in Cause No. 2:08−cv−227 (N.D. Ind.), # 18 Exhibit 18 − Order in Cause No. 2:08−cv−227 (N.D. Ind.), # 19 Exhibit 19 − Affidavit of Mary Idstein, # 20 Exhibit 20 − Complaint in Cause No. 2:10−cv−035 (N.D. Ind.), # 21 Exhibit 21 − Order in Cause No. 2:10−cv−035 (N.D. Ind.), # 22 Exhibit 22 − Order in Cause No. 2:10−cv−035 (N.D. Ind.), # 23 Exhibit 23 − Plaintiff's Legal Memo in Cause No. 2:10−cv−035, # 24 Exhibit 24 − Martindale Profile of Amanda G. Perdue, # 25 Exhibit 25 − National Conference of Bar Examiners Standard Appln Form, # 26 Cover Sheet for Sealed Document Ex 26 Filed Under Seal, # 27 Exhibit 27 − Viewpoint: I hope you read this, Ind. Lawyer 11−24−10, # 28 Cover Sheet for Sealed Document Ex 28 Filed Under Seal)(Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
159 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 1/20/2011 *** SEALED Exhibit 4, re 158 Designation of Evidence in Support of 155 CROSS−MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
160 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 1/20/2011 *** SEALED Exhibit 13, re 158 Designation of Evidence in Support of 155 CROSS−MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
161 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 1/20/2011 *** SEALED Exhibit 14, re 158 Designation of Evidence in Support of 155 CROSS−MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
162 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 1/20/2011 *** SEALED Exhibit 26, re 158 Designation of Evidence in Support of 155 CROSS−MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
163 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 1/20/2011 *** SEALED Exhibit 28, re 158 Designation of Evidence in Support of 155 CROSS−MOTION for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
164 MOTION to Seal Document 157 SEALED Response in Opposition to Motion, 159 SEALED Exhibit 4, 160 SEALED Exhibit 13, 161 SEALED Exhibit 14, 162 SEALED Exhibit 26, 163 SEALED Exhibit 28, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/20/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
165 ORDER granting defts' 164 Motion to Seal Dkt. Nos. 157, 159, 160, 161, 162 and 163. Defts shall file within seven (7) days of this order, redacted versions of Dkt. Nos. 159, 160, 161, 162 and 163 for the court's public record (see Order for further details) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/20/2011. (SWM) Modified on 1/21/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 01/21/2011)
166 REDACTION re 159 SEALED Exhibit 4 re 158 Designation of Evidence by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/28/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/27/2011)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 15 of 20

01/27/2011 01/27/2011 01/27/2011 01/28/2011 02/16/2011
02/16/2011
02/16/2011 02/21/2011 03/04/2011
03/07/2011 03/08/2011
03/08/2011 03/14/2011

167 REDACTION re 161 Sealed Exhibit 14 re 158 Designation of Evidence by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/28/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/27/2011)
168 REDACTION re 162 Sealed Exhibit 26 re 158 Designation of Evidence by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/28/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/27/2011)
169 REDACTION re 163 SEALED Exhibit 28 re 158 Designation of Evidence by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/28/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/27/2011)
170 REDACTION to 160 SEALED Exhibit 13 re 158 Designation of Evidence by THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 1/31/2011 (JD). (Entered: 01/28/2011)
171 REDACTED RESPONSE in Opposition re 155 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' 145 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Supplemental Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit Supplemental Affidavit)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 2/17/2011 (JD). (Entered: 02/16/2011)
172 *** SEALED PER ORDER DATED 2/21/2011 *** SEALED RESPONSE in Opposition re 155 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' 145 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Supplemental Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit Supplemental Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit Supplemental Affidavit)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 2/17/2011 (JD). Modified on 2/22/2011 (SWM). (Entered: 02/16/2011)
173 MOTION to Seal Document 172 SEALED Document, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
174 ORDER granting pltfs' 173 Motion to Seal Dkt. Number 172. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/21/2011. (SWM) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
175 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to March 14, 2011 to file reply to 155 MOTION for Summary Judgment Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Defendants' Agreed Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants to File Their Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
176 ORDER granting 175 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to 3/14/2011 re 155 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/7/2011. (JD) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
177 SCHEDULING ORDER − The Court hereby sets the Final Pretrial Conference for October 19, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 330, and the Bench Trial to begin on November 7, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 344, Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Counsel shall be prepared to fully discuss the status of the action, including all matters requiring completion preparatory to trial at the final pretrial conference. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/8/2011.(JD) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
178 TRIAL PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (JD) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
179 REPLY in Support of Motion re 155 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 16 of 20

03/29/2011 04/01/2011 04/23/2011 07/08/2011 07/11/2011 08/25/2011
09/20/2011 09/20/2011 09/20/2011
09/27/2011 10/03/2011

LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
180 MOTION Requests for Oral Argument on Motions for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Setting Oral Argument on Motions for Summary Judgment)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
181 ORDER granting 180 Motion for Oral Argument on Motions for Summary Judgment − The Oral Argument is set for 7/22/2011 at 09:00 AM in room #344, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Time allotted for oral argument is one hour total, 30 minutes per side. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/1/2011.(JD) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
182 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: The parties appeared by telephone for a status conference. The parties report that discovery is complete. Parties are to report to the Court by April 29, 2011 whether the scheduling of another settlement conference would be productive. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (TMA) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
183 MOTION for Continuance of Summary Judgment Oral Argument, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Oral Argument)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
184 ORDER granting 183 Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Oral Argument − The Oral Argument is CONTINUED to 8/24/2011 at 03:30 PM in room #344, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Time alloted for the oral argument is one hour. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/11/2011.(JD) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
185 ENTRY AND ORDER REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT HELD AUGUST 24, 2011 − This matter is before the Court for oral argument on 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 155 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Parties appear by counsel. Oral Argument is heard. The Court takes this matter under advisement and will issue a ruling on or before September 30, 2011. The final pretrial conference set October 19, 2011 and the trial set November 7, 2011 are hereby VACATED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. (Court Reporter Fred Pratt.)(JD) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
186 ENTRY − The Court is prepared to issue its ruling regarding the pending motions for summary judgment NOT under seal. If either party believes the Court's ruling should be filed under seal, that party must file Notice in CM/ECF by 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, September 21, 2011. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/20/2011.(TRG) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
187 NOTICE (JOINT) in Response to Court's Entry of September 20, 2011, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
188 ENTRY ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT − Plaintiffs' Motion (Dkt. 145 ) is GRANTED with respect to Question 23 but DENIED with respect to Questions 22, 24, and 25. Conversely, the Board's Motion (Dkt. 155 ) is GRANTED with respect to Questions 22, 24, and 25 but DENIED with respect to Question 23. The parties are directed to notify the Court within seven days if entry of Final Judgment is appropriate. If the parties agree that Final Judgment is appropriate, they are directed to submit a mutually agreeable proposed Final Judgment at that time. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/20/2011. (JD) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
189 NOTICE of Joint Submission of Proposed Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Judgment) (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/27/2011)
190 MOTION to Redefine Class to Be Consistent with Entry on Cross−Motions for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 17 of 20

10/05/2011 10/06/2011 10/06/2011
12/02/2011 12/02/2011 12/19/2011 12/21/2011 12/22/2011 01/04/2012 01/17/2012
01/17/2012 01/19/2012 01/19/2012

Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
191 RESPONSE to 190 Motion to Amend Cass Definition, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Overholt, Anthony) Added link to Motion on 10/6/2011 (JD). (Entered: 10/05/2011)
192 ORDER granting 190 Motion to Redefine Class. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/6/2011. (JD) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
193 CLOSED JUDGMENT − Comes now the Court, following its Entry on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 188 ), and enters the following Findings and Judgment. Defendants are permanently enjoined and shall immediately cease utilizing Question 23 on the Indiana Bar application. The Board of Law Examiners shall immediately take steps to remove question 23 from the application for the February, 2012 bar examination. Time within which plaintiffs are to submit any claims for attorneys' fees or costs is extended until sixty (60) days from the date of this Judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/6/2011.(JD) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
194 **WITHDRAWN PER DKT. NO. 219 ** MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Kenneth J. Falk, # 2 Affidavit Kandy Kendall, # 3 Affidavit Richard A. Waples, # 4 Affidavit Michael K. Sutherlin)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 6/21/2012 (JD). (Entered: 12/02/2011)
195 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 194 MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
196 RESPONSE in Opposition re 194 MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − 6/30/10 Rule 68 Offer of Judgment)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
197 MOTION for Extension of Time to January 5, 2012 to file reply to 194 MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
198 ORDER granting 197 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to 1/5/2012 re 194 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 12/22/2011. (JD) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
199 REPLY in Support of Motion re 194 MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
200 **WITHDRAWN PER DKT. NO. 219 ** MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Defendants' Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Surreply)(Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 6/21/2012 (JD). (Entered: 01/17/2012)
201 SCHEDULING ORDER: This matter is set for an in person conference regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys fees on Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in room 257, United States Court House, 46 E.Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/17/2012.(SWM) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
202 **STRICKEN PER DKT. NO. 206 ** ORDER granting 200 Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/19/2012. (JD) Modified on 1/20/2012 (JD). (Entered: 01/19/2012)
203 **STRICKEN PER DKT. NO. 206 ** Surreply re 194 MOTION for Attorney Fees, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (JD) Modified on 1/20/2012 (JD). (Entered:

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 18 of 20

01/19/2012 01/19/2012 01/20/2012 01/23/2012 01/26/2012
03/02/2012 05/04/2012
05/11/2012 05/14/2012 05/21/2012

01/19/2012)
204 MOTION for Reconsideration re 202 Order on Motion for Leave to File Surreply, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
205 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 204 MOTION for Reconsideration re 202 Order on Motion for Leave to File Surreply, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU of Indiana − Indiana University School of Law − Indianapolis Chapter, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) Removed duplicate wording on 1/20/2012 (JD). (Entered: 01/19/2012)
206 ORDER granting 204 Motion for Reconsideration − Having reconsidered its prior Order allowing the proposed surreply to be filed (Doc. No. 202), the surreply is now STRICKEN. The Plaintiffs shall have until January 25, 2012 to file their response in opposition. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/20/2012. (JD) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
207 RESPONSE in Opposition re 200 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees , filed by Plaintiffs ACLU OF INDIANA − INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW − INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER, AMANDA PERDUE. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
208 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: In−Person Conference held on 1/26/2012. The parties have agreed to a conditional resolution of this dispute. The Court hereby STAYS all further briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees and Related Motions pending further order. Status Conference set for 2/29/2012 04:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss case status. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided via email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
210 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephone Status Conference held on 2/29/2012. The parties discussed the status of resolution of this matter. Status Conference set for 4/30/2012 04:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. The purpose of this conference is to discuss status of approval of the fee settlement. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided via email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
212 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 4/30/2012. The parties indicated that the settlement of this matter has been approved by the Supreme Court and has been sent to the Attorney General for approval. Status Conference set for 5/17/2012 11:20 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Defendant should be prepared to advise the Court of the status of the approval of the settlement and a proposed time−line for completion of the settlement. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated phone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.(SWM) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
213 MOTION for Continuance of Telephonic Status Conference, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Continuing Status Conference)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
215 ORDER granting Defts' 213 Motion for Continuance of Telephonic Status Conference currently scheduled for 5/17/2012. Status Conference RESET for 5/18/2012 03:20 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. All other requirements of the Court's order dated 5/4/12 212 remain in full force and effect. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 5/14/2012.(SWM) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
217 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 5/18/2012. (See Entry for details.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (TMA) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 19 of 20

06/20/2012 06/21/2012 08/21/2014 10/01/2014
10/22/2014 03/25/2015
04/03/2015 04/16/2015 04/21/2015
04/23/2015 04/24/2015

218 NOTICE (JOINT) Concerning Settlement of Attorneys' Fees and Costs Claims, filed by Plaintiffs ACLU OF INDIANA − INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW − INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER, AMANDA PERDUE, Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
219 ORDER − The parties, having filed their Joint Notice Concerning Settlement of Attorneys' Fee and Costs Claims, and the Court having read the Notice and being duly advised finds that all pending motions in this case have been withdrawn and all pending matters have been fully resolved. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is closed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/21/2012.(JD) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
220 Submission of Friend of the Court brief, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ADH) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
221 MOTION for Contempt of Court against The Indiana Board of Law Examiners 2) Motion for admission to the Board for Robert M. Shaw under the Americans with Disabilities Act 3)Motion to strike down the fee of $875 set high to prevent out of State applicants and people on SSI from practicing law in Indiana based on limited income. 4) Motion for Summary Judgment based on the fact of previous Order, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Copy of E−mails, # 2 Exhibit 2−Copy of E−mails, # 3 Exhibit 3−Copy of E−mails, # 4 Exhibit 4−Copy of letter dated 9/23/2014 from the State of Indiana, # 5 Exhibit 5−Copy of E−mail, # 6 Exhibit 6−Copy of E−mail, # 7 Envelope)(CBU) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
222 Rule 11b the Plaintiff adds additional evidence in supporting, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (Attachments: # 1 Attachments A−D, # 2 Envelope)(CBU) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
223 Entry Directing Further Proceedings − This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Contempt of Court against the Indiana Board of Law Examiner, Motion for Admission to the Board for Robert M. Shaw under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Motion to Strike down the fee of $875.00, and Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Interested Party, Robert Shaw, pro se. (Dkt. 221 ). The Defendants shall have through May 20, 2015 in which to respond to the motion for contempt and for other relief filed by Mr. Shaw on October 1, 2014. Mr. Shaw shall then have through June 11, 2015 in which to reply. Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/25/2015.(MGG) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
224 MOTION for an Order to Practice Law in Indiana, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Entry, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Envelope)(MGG) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
225 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to May 20, 2015 re 224 MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO PRACTICE LAW IN INDIANA, filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Craig, Darren) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
226 Entry Discussing Selected Matters − The motion for extension of time [dkt 225 ] is granted. The defendant shall have through shall have through May 20, 2015 in which to respond to the motion for contempt and for other relief filed by Robert Shaw on October 1, 2014. Mr. Shaw shall then have through June 11, 2015 in which to reply. Mr. Shaw's motion for permission to practice law in the State of Indiana [dkt 224 ] is denied because that is a measure which this Court cannot order, whether in conjunction with this lawsuit or otherwise. Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/21/2015. (MGG) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
227 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants Motion for more Time, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Envelope)(AH) (Entered: 04/23/2015)
228 MOTION for Contempt of Court, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C) (BGT) (Entered: 04/27/2015)

Case: 1:09-cv-842 As of: 03/16/2018 10:15 PM EDT 20 of 20

04/27/2015 05/04/2015 05/20/2015 07/09/2015 09/11/2015
09/25/2015 01/05/2018 01/09/2018 01/25/2018

229 ORDER denying 227 Motion for an extension of time as it has been construed as a request that the court reconsider the Order granting motion for extension of time because the modest extension of time was warranted. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/27/2015 (dist made) (CBU) (Entered: 04/27/2015)
230 Plaintiff Answering Court Order to Seek Relief, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. c/s (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(CKM) (Entered: 05/05/2015)
231 RESPONSE in Opposition re 228 MOTION , filed by Defendant THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS. (Craig, Darren) (Entered: 05/20/2015)
232 MOTION for Judgment, filed by Interested Party ROBERT M. SHAW. No c./s. (Attachments: # 1 Attachments, # 2 Envelope)(MGG) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
233 ENTRY − ON PENDING MOTIONS; This matter is before the Court on several matters: A Motion for Contempt of Court against the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, Motion for Contempt of Court and Motion for Judgment filed by Interested Party Robert M. Shaw. There has been no order issued in this case which permits Mr. Shaw to obtain any of the relief sought in his post−judgment motions. Accordingly, Mr. Shaw's Motions Filing No. 221 Filing No. 228 and Filing No. 232 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/11/2015. Copy Mailed. (CKM) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
234 Letter regarding case from ROBERT M. SHAW. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (BGT) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
235 MOTION Regarding Indiana Supreme Court filed by non−party Andrew U.D. Straw. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Envelope) (MEJ) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
236 Entry on Pending Motion − 235 Motion Regarding Indiana Supreme Court is denied. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/9/2018. (MEJ) (Entered: 01/09/2018)
237 ENTRY − Mr. Straw should submit any communications on paper for filing by the Clerk's Office. If he communicates with Clerk's Office or Court staff members by other means, those communications will not be treated as "filings" with the Court, and the Court will be under no obligation to respond. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/25/2018. (Copy mailed to Andrew Straw) (MEJ) (Entered: 01/25/2018)

Case #: 1:09−cv−00842−TWP−MJD