Delaware Department of Public Safet & Division of Police Complaint

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF DELAWARE; THE DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; and THE DELAWARE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, United States of America, alleges:
1. This action is brought on behalf of the United States to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-6, 1331, 1343(a) and 1345.
3. Defendant State of Delaware is a state of the United States of America.
4. Defendant Delaware Department of Public Safety is a body corporate created under the laws of the State of Delaware. See 29 Del. Code § 8201.
5. Defendant Division of State Police (DSP) is a division of the Delaware Department of Public Safety and is responsible for, among other things, maintaining safety throughout Delaware by enforcing state laws. See 29 Del. Code § 8206.
6. Each of the Defendants is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and an employer or an agent of an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
7. Defendant DSP employs individuals throughout Delaware in the trooper position. The Defendants have jurisdiction over the certification for employment of troopers in the Division of State Police.
8. Defendant DSP is primarily responsible for the recruitment and hiring of individuals into the trooper position, which is an entry-level law enforcement position.
9. Upon current information and belief, Defendant DSP hired approximately 327 new troopers for nine recruit classes (classes 59-69) from July 1989 through February 1998. Of the troopers hired during this period, approximately 26, or 8%, were African Americans, even though African Americans constituted approximately 16% of all applicants for entry into these recruit classes who satisfied Defendant DSP's minimal qualifications for the trooper position.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/delawarecm.htm

8/15/2007

Delaware Department of Public Safet & Division of Police Complaint

Page 2 of 3

10. Defendants have used written examinations for the entry-level DSP trooper position that have disproportionately excluded African Americans from employment but that have not been shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity as required by federal law.
11. Defendants' use of these written examinations, as described in Paragraph 10, constitutes a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by African Americans of their right to equal employment opportunities without discrimination based on race. The pattern or practice is of such a nature that it is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
12. In accordance with Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, the United States, through the Department of Justice:
(a) has investigated the employment practices of Defendants; and
(b) has notified Defendants of the result of this investigation and the practices described above and of their effects.
13. All conditions precedent to filing suit have been performed or have occurred.
Wherefore, Plaintiff United States prays for an order enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with them to:
(a) refrain from using written examinations for the entry-level position of trooper that disproportionately exclude African Americans from employment but have not been shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity as required by federal law;
(b) provide remedial relief sufficient to make whole all persons who have suffered individual loss or will suffer individual loss as a result of the discrimination alleged in this Complaint; and
(c) adopt other appropriate nondiscriminatory measures to overcome the effects of their discriminatory practices.
Plaintiff United States prays for such additional relief as justice may require.
Date of filing: _____________________________, 2001
JANET RENO Attorney General
By:
_______________________ CARL SCHNEE United States Attorney Delaware Bar No. 198 JUDITH KINNEY Asst. United States Attorney Delaware Bar No. 3643 District of Delaware

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/delawarecm.htm

8/15/2007

Delaware Department of Public Safet & Division of Police Complaint
Chase Manhattan Center 1201 Market Street, Suite 1100 Post Office Box 2046 Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2046 (302)573-6277
____________________________ BILL LANN LEE Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
__________________________ MARYBETH MARTIN MICHAEL T. KIRKPATRICK STEPHEN J. CURRAN Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section P.O. Box 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968 (202) 616-9615 (202) 514-4762

Page 3 of 3

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/delawarecm.htm

8/15/2007

 
 Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 1 of 21�

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintjff,
V.

Civil Action No. 01-020-KAJ

THE STATE OF DELAWARE, THE DBLAWARE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THE DELAWARE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE,
Defendants.

~ c=;l c;:::)

0
~::;;

CJ"l (J)-;;::J

;cD:":

~~
~c

GJ ~--J-(t. n - q

I
~

o.C.'.~o,f-T-r1

~
::31:

rrY1c7,.10
~-1

9. '~"""0"n

N f.\~

U)

-1

CONSENT DECREE I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The United States brought this action against the State of Delaware C'Statc"), the Delaware Department of Public Safety, and the Division of State Police ("DSP") (collectively, the "Defendants"), pursuant to Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-6, et seq. ("Title VII"). In its Complaint, the United States alleged that Defendants' use of the Alert written examination, with a cutoff score of 75% (standardized), in the screening and selection of applicarits for employment as DSP Troopers from 1992-98 (froopcr Recruit Class Nos. 61-69) violated Title VII by disproportionately excluding African.An1ericans from employment, without being demonstrated by Defendants to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. The Court bifurcated this case into two phases: liability (Stage I) and relief (Stage II). (D.I. 14). On May 20, 2003, the Court granted partial summary judgment for the United States,

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 2 of 21�
determining that the United States had established a prima facie case that Defendants' use ofthe Alert for Trooper Recruit Class Nos. 61-69 caused a disparate impact on African-American applicants. (D.I. 261). A bench trial was held August 13-20, 2003, during which Defendants attempted to demonstrate that their use of the Alert from 1992-98 was "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity." See 42 U.S.C. §2000e2(k)(l)(A)(i). On March 22, 2004, the Court issued Post-Trial Findings ofFact and Conclusions of Law, detennining that Defendants had failed to satisfy their burden of proof, that their use of the Alert at an impennissibly high cutoff score was not consistent with business necessity and, accordingly, that their use of the Alert violated Title VII. (D.I. 305). On August 24, 2004, the
Court entered a Scheduling Order for Stage IT, commencing the reliefphase of this case.
The parties have agreed to enter into this Consent Decree to resolve this matter without further contested litigation. The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction over them and over the subject matter of this litigation pursuant to Title VII, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a) and 1345. The parties further agree that this Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in the United States' Complaint, and is final and binding on the parties and their officials, agents, employees and successors, and all persons acting on their behalf or in active concert or participation with them. Defendants agree that they shall not seek judicial appeal of any of the fmdings and conclusions of this Court related to Defendants' liability under Title VII, including but not limited to the Court's determination that Defendants' use of the Alert caused a disparate impact on African-American applicants and that Defendants failed to establish the lawfulness of their use of the Alert in the screening and selection of applicants for hire as Troopers in Trooper Recruit Class Nos. 61-69.
2

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 3 of 21�

1JU\JUIIICII\ J.J I- I

I I IV'-' VVt --~ - - - -

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Defendants on September 1, 2004. (D.I. 319) In that motion. Defendants request that the Court set the Alert cutoff score for Claimant eligibility at a min.imwn of 70% (standardized). The United States opposes Defendants' motion and requests that the Court set the Alert cutoff score for Claimant eligibility at a minimum of 66% (standardized). (D.I. 320) While the scope of Defendants' pending motion covers Claimant eligibility for all phases of relief, the United States and Defendants agree that the scope of that motion should be limited to the issue of a minimum Alert cutoff score for Claimants seeking priority hire and/or retroactive seniority and pension reliefpursuant to this Consent Decree.
The United States and Defendants have been advised by the Court that, to facilitate a resolution of this case, the Court witt rule on Defendants' pending motion and that such ruling will be limited to the issue of a minimum Alert cutoff score for Claimants seeiGng priority hire relief pursuant to this Consent Decree. The parties agree to be bound by the Court's ruling, provided that the Court approves and enters this Consent Decree.
To the extent that any provision(s) of this Consent Decree are inconsistent with the limitations on disclosure of information contained in the Global Agreed Protective, Order previously entered by the Court in this case, such limitations are lifted and the Global Agreed . Protective Order shall not apply to any actions necessary to implement the provision(s) of this Consent Decree.

3

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 4 of 21�

II. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS AND ORDER OF RELIEF

This Consent Decree is intended to resolve: (i) all claims by the United States regarding

Defendants' unlawful use of the Alert, and (ii) all·claims- whether under federal, state or local

equal employment opportunity law - by any person who accepts relief under this Consent

Decree regarding Defendants' unlawful use ofthc Alert.

III. INJUNCTNE AND PROSPECTIVE RELIEF

1. Defendants, their officials, agents, employees and successors, and all persons

acting on their behalf or in active concert or participation with them, shall not engage in any

selection practice utilizing the Alert that has the purpose or effect of unlawfully discriminating

against African-American applicants or potential applicants for the position ofTrooper.

2. Defendants, their officials, agents, employees and successors, and all persons

acting on their behalf or in active concert or participation with them, shall not discriminate or

retaliate against any person because of his/her participation in the United States' investigation

giving rise to this lawsuit, or any proceedings related to this lawsuit or arising under this

Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, seeking or obtaining relief provided under this

Consent Decree.

N. INDNIDUAL RELIEF

A.

Persons Eligible for Relief

3. This Decree provides victim specific relief to Claimants. The following

Claimants are eligible for reliefunder this Consent Decree:

4

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 5 of 21� f 21

r¥ All African~Americans amongst the applicants for a Trooper position with the DSP
that resulted in Trooper Recruit Class Nos. 61~69 who met the minimum qualifications in effect at the time of application, took and attained a stand i ed score of at least 66% on the Alert for Claimants seeking monetary relief, o:1:t._% on the Alert for Claimants seeking priority hire, retroactive seniority and/or pension relief, would not have been disqualified by Defendants in a subsequent stage in the selection process (e.g., would not have failed the background investigation, physical or medical examination, drug screening, etc.), did not voluntarily remove th~mselvcs from consideration (e.g., failed to appear at any stage in the selection process, declined an offer of hire, etc.), and were not hired to the position of Trooper in the Trooper Recruit Class that resulted from the Alert examination(s) they took.

A list of Claimants is set forth in Appendix A, attached hereto.

B.

Monetary Relief

4. Defendants shall provide the swn of One Million, Four Hundred and Twenty~

Five Thousand Dollars ($1 ,425,000) ("Settlement Fund") to be used to satisfy all back pay

claims to be paid under this Consent Decree.

5. Only those Claimants described in Paragraph 3, supra, shall be eligible for

monetary relief, including back pay, under this Consent Decree.

6. Within thitty (30) calendar days from the date of final entry of this Consent

Decree by this Court, Defendants shall deposi~ the total swn of the· Settlement Fund in a

federally insured financial institution agreed to by the parties.

7. The Settlement Fund, inclu~ing all interest that accrues on the fund after deposit,

thereafter shall be distributed by Defendants to the Claimants at the direction and in the sole

discretion of the United States, subject to review by the Court. While the distribution of the

Settlement Fund by Defendants to the Claimants shall be at the direction and in the sole

discretion· of the United States subject only to review by the Court, Defendants may. at their

5

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 6 of 21�
option, provide the United States with infonnation and/or documentation regarding Claimants they would like the United States to consider relative to the distribution of the Settlement Fund. However, any such infonnation and/or documentation shall be provided to the United States on a timely basis and shall be limited to the parameters ofParagraph 3, supra. Each Claimant shall be
entitled to an increase in monetary relief due to accrual of interest by the following factor: the
total amount of interest accruing to the principal of the Settlement Fund at the aforementioned fmancial institution, divided by the total principal amount ofthe Settlement Fund. Interest on the fund shall be compounded quarterly.
8. AH monetary relief under this Consent Decree shall be paid directly by Defendants to the Claimants, as described in Paragraph 32, infra. The monetary relief to any Claimant who dies after having been identified by the United States as qualifying for relief shall be paid as clirected by the United States and approved by the Court.
9. Defendants shall pay all employer contributions to Medicare due on monetary relief to Claimants who accept the relief provided by this Consent Decree, and any other federal, state or local tax or contribution nonnally paid by employers. Any employer contributions to Medicare or to federal, state or local tax shall not be deducted from either the Settlement Fund or any Claimant's monetary relief. Defendants shall withhold, to the extent required by law, all appropriate federal and state income taxes, employee contributions to Medicare, and any other required employee withholding or deduction from any monetary relief made under this Consent Decree, all of which shall be deducted by Defendants from such monetary relief and all of which shall be paid from the Settlement-Fund.
10. A Claimant shall not be required to express an interest in priority hire on his/her
6

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 7 of 21�
. ~~- . - · - .

Interest in Reliefform in order to receive monetary reliefunder this Consent Decree.

C.

Priority Hire to the Position ofTrooper

11. Defendants shall provide up to, but no more than, twelve (12) priority

Trooper hires to Claimants pursuant to the terms of this Consent Decree. The maximum

number of Claimants who shall be entitled to priority hire by Defendants by Recruit Class

are as follows:

a. Recruit Class No. 61: 1

b. Recruit Class No. 62: 1

c. Recruit Class No. 63: 1

d. Recruit Class No. 64: 1

e. Recruit Class No. 65: 1

f.

Recruit Class No. 66: 2

g. Recruit Class No. 67: 2

h. Recruit Class No. 68: 1

1.

Recruit Class No. 69: 2

12. To be eligible for priority hire to the position of Trooper, such Claimants

ust satisfy all of the requirements set forth in Paragraph 3, supra, including the

requirement that such Claimants must have attained a standardized score of at least
0~ %on the Alert. In addition, such Claimants must: (a) timely submit Interest in Relief

and Release forms as described in Paragraphs 26 and 32, infra,· and (b) pass the selection

procedures listed in Appendix H.

13. Within thirty (30) calendar days from the date Defendants receive from

the United States the "Interest in Relief' forms and list of Claimants requesting priority

hire pursuant to Paragraph 27, infra, Defendants shall initiate the process of evaluating

7

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 8 of 21�
such Claimants for priority hire. Upon completing the evaluation of Claimants for priority hire, Defendants shall establish nine (9) separate Priority Hire Lists, designated A through I, with Priority Hire List A corresponding to Claimants who failed the Alert that resulted in Trooper Recruit Class No. 61, Priority Hire List B corresponding to Claimants who failed the Alert that resulted in Trooper Recruit Class No. 62, and so on. Each Priority Hire List shall consist of the rank-ordered results of the Claimants' composite scores on the selection procedures set forth in Appendix H. Pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, § 5935, Claimants who arc veterans of the armed forces of the United States who served during wartime, and were Delaware residents at the time of their induction, shaU be given a preference in terms of rank-order. Disabled veteran Claimants, as the term "disabled veteran" is defmed under § 5935, shall receive credit of no more than ten (10) additional points on their composite score from the selection procedures set forth in Appendix H. Other veterans shall receive credit of no more than five (5) additional points on their composite score from the selection procedures set forth in Appendix H. In the event of a tie among Claimants, rank-order shall be determined randomly by computer.
14. The scheduling of the selection procedures and submission of Priority Hire Lists A through I shall be completed by Defendants withln ninety (90) calendar days from the date Defendants receive the "Interest in Relief, forms and list of Claimants requesting priority hire from the United States pursuant to Paragraph 27, infra. Upon completion of the evaluation of Claimants for priority hire, Defendants shall serve upon the United States the Priority Hire Lists. After receiving approval from the United States, Defendants shall incorporate the priority hire Claimants into the first two recruit classes that commence after the Court rules on the Claimants' eligibility for priority hire relief, pursuant to Paragraph 31, infra. Should the munber of Priority Hjres total less than ten
8

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 9 of 21�
(10) Claimants, Defendants shall incorporate the Priority Hires into the first recruit class that commences after the Court rules on the Claimants' eligibility. Defendants shall rank
priority hire Claimants from Paragraph 3, supra, who pass the selection procedures listed in Appendix H by a composite score oftheir performance on the selection procedures.
IS. A Claimant who is placed on a Priority Hire List shall be entitled to an offer of hire as a Trooper by Defendants, as set forth in this Decree. As between Claimants on Priority Hire Lists A through I, Defendants shall first make offers to
Claimants on Priority Hire List A, based on their rank-order placement, until List A is exhausted or the numerical limitation in Subparagraph lla, supra, has been met,
whichever comes first. Defendants shall then make offers to Claimants on Priority Hire List B, based on their rank-order placement until List B is exhausted or the numerical
limitation in Subparagraph 1lb, supra, has been met, whichever comes first. Defendants
shall continue this process, going through the Priority Hire Lists in alphabetical order and making offers from each Priority Hire List based on rank-order, until the lists are exhausted or up to twelve (12) priority hire offers have been accepted, whichever comes first.
16. Defendants' notification of an offer ofhire pursuant to Paragraph 15,
supra, shall be made in writing and accomplished by certified mail (return receipt
requested) to a Claimant. A Claimant who receives a written offer of priority hire from Defendants shall have ten (10) calendar days from the date of receipt to notify Defendants that he/she accepts such offer. Notification by a Claimant shall be in writing and shall be accomplished either by first class mail postmarked on or before the tenth calendar day from the date of receipt ofDefendants' written offer or delivered in person at the offices ofthe Delaware State Police on or before the tenth calendar day from the
9

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 10 of 21�

date of his/her receipt ofDefendants' written offer. Ifa Claimant provides Defendants

with such notification timely, Defendants shall provide him/her with a priority hire.

However, if a Claimant fails to timely accept Defendants' offer, Defendants' obligation to

provide him/her with priority hire under this Consent Decree ceases, except for

reasonable cause as determined by the United States, subject to approval by the Court.

17. Nothing in this Consent Decree precludes Claimants from applying for

hire, or being appointed, as Troopers under Defendants' regular selection and hiring

process for Troopers.

D. Retroactive Seniority

18. Any Claimant who accepts priority hire under this Consent Decree and

who achieves permanent status in that position, as well as any Claimant who otherwise

would have been entitled to a priority hire under this Consent Decree but already is an

incumbent Trooper, shall be entitled to retroactive seniority credit in that position as of

the following retroactive seniority date.

a.

Priority Hire List A- July 20, 1992;

b.

Priority Hire List B- November 15, 1993;

c.

Priority Hire List C- November 1, 1~94;

d.

Priority Hire List D- July 24, 1995;

e.

Priority Hire List E- March 19, 1996;

f

Priority Hire List F - January 20, 1997;

g. Priority Hire List G- September 22, 1997;

h.

Priority Hire List H - April 6, 1998; and

1.

Priority Hire List I -October 19, 1998.

19. As used in this Consent Decree, the term "retroactive seniority" shall

10

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 11 of 21� f 21
mean the crediting ofseniority for all pwposes for which seniority is used in the DSP, except that retroactive senjority credit shall not affect consideration or eligibility for either promotion or time-in~grade requirements for pwposes of completing any probationary period or eligibility for promotion. Claimants who receive retroactive seniority shall receive salary and vacation at the same level as the salary and vacation they would currently be receiving if they had been hired on their retroactive seniority dates. However, Claimants shall not be entitled to any retroactive accruals of vacation or sick leave benefits, including sick leave incentive benefits. Claimants shall not be entitled any back
pay, or retroactive overtime payments apart from whatever monetary relief such
Claimants receive pursuant to this Consent Decree. Additionally, retroactive seniority shall not be used for purposes ofmeeting any qualifying period pertaining to duty disability or duty death benefits.
20. For Claimants with multiple test dates and failures, their retroactive seniority date shall be the earliest date upon which the Claimants meet the qualifications set forth in Paragraph 3, supra.
E. Pension Benefits 21. Any Claimant who accepts priority hire under this Consent Decree and who achieves permanent status in that position, as well as any Claimant who otherwise would have been entitled to a priority hire under this Consent Decree but already is an incwnbent Trooper, shall have the opportunity to retroactively fund their employee pension contributions. To do so, a Claimant may contribute an additional portion of his/her salary above and beyond the required employee pension contribution that shall go towards retroactively funding his/her pension. A Claimant shall have up to eight (8) years to contribute an amount totaling 5% ofthe salary the Claimant would have earned
11

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 12 of 21�
21

between the retroactive seniority date, set pursuant to Paragraph 18, supra, and the date

on which the Claimant becomes, or became, a permanent employee. Any retroactive

pension fund contributions a Claimant chooses to make shall be credited first to the

initial year ofretroactive seniority. After reaching 5% of the salary to which the

Claimant would have received for the first year of employment, any retroactive pension

fund contributions a Claimant chooses to make shall be credited to the next year, Wltil

the contributions reach 5% ofthe salary to which the Claimant would have received for

the second year ofemployment. This sequence ofcrediting retroactive employee pension

contributions shall continue ycar-by-year for up to, but no more than eight (8) years. For

each year funded by a Claimant's retroactive pension fund contributions, Defendants

shall provide all required employer contributions to the employee retirement system

sufficient to fully fund that Claimant's pension benefits for that year. The Defendants

may elect, in their sole discretion, to pay an estimate of any or all such employer

contributions in advance ofthe Claimant's payment ofemployee contributions.

However, Defendants' election to make an advance contribution shall not, negatively

impact or decrease the amount ofpension to which a Claimant is entitled m1der the law.

In all events, the amoWlt of a Claimant's pension payments shall be calculated in

accordance with the defined benefit formula. Any such contributions by Defendants to

the employee retirement system shall not be deducted from the Settlement Fund or any

Claimant's monetary relief.

F.

Fairness Hearing on Consent Decree

22. Upon provisional approval, this Court will set a date for a fairness

hearing to consider giving its final approval to this Consent Decree and hear any

objections filed by individuals affected by this Consent Decree. The fairness hearing shall

12

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 13 of 21�

be held within sixty (60) calendar days after provisional approval ofthis Consent Decree.

23. Within ten (10) calendar days from the date ofthe Court's provisional

approval ofthis Consent Decree, Defendants shall provide written notice ofthe Court's
an provisional approval to all Claimants listed in Appendix A and to incumbent Troopers.

The notice shall provide a description ofthe proposed settlement embodied in this

Consent Decree, specify the date, time and place for a fairness hearing, and describe the

procedure for filing objections with the Court. Notice for purposes of this paragraph shall

be by regular first class mail to the individual's last known address listed in Defendants'

records. An example of such notice is attached hereto as Appendix B.

G. Notice to Claimants ofFinal Entry ofConsent Decree

24. Within ten (10) calendar days from the date of final entry ofthis Consent

Decree by this Court, and upon agreement of the parties regarding the most current

available information, Defendants shall send the following by certified mail (return

receipt requested), to the last known address ofthose Claimants identified in Paragraph

3, supra:

a.

Notice of Settlement (as set forth as Appendix C); and

b.

"Interest in RelieP' form (as set forth as Appendix D).

25. Defendants shall bear the cost ofall mailingDefendants are required

to make under this Consent Decree.

H. Claimants to Submit "Interest in Relief' Forms

26. Any Claimant who fails to forward an "Interest in Relief' form to the

United States within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date ofthe last mailing by

Defendants of the Notice of Settlement described in Paragraph 24, supra, shall be

deemed to have waived any right to be considered for remedial relief under this Consent

13

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 14 of 21�
A ... -£I"'\ A

Decree except for reasonable cause shown. as detennined by the United States, subject

to approval by the Court.

27. The United States shall provide Defendants with all "Interest in Relief'

forms, as well as a Jist of Claimants requesting priority hire, within ten (10) calendar

days from the last date for submission of such forms by the Claimants.

I.

Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief

28. Within ten (10) calendar days from the date Defendants have established

Priority Hire Lists A through I, Defendants shall provide the United States with copies of

such Lists and, for any Claimant who applied for priority hire but does not appear on a

Priority Hire List, a statement describing the reason(s) why the Claimant is not on such

List. The Parties shall seek to resolve any dispute concerning the Priority Hire Lists.

29. Within ten (10) calendar days from the date Defendants have provided the

United States, with Priority Hire Lists A through I. the United States shall notify each

Claimant listed in Paragraph 3, supra, who forwarded an "Interest in Relief' form under

this Consent Decree, as to:

(a) specific relief, if any, the United States has proposed on behalf of the Claimant;

(b) whether Defendants dispute this claim;
(c) the opportunity to file, under Paragraph 30, infra, an objection with respect to that relief; and
(d) the date, time and place ofa hearing by the Court to consider the objection.

The United States shall at the same time provide the same notice to Defendants.

30. Any objections by Claimants to the claims for relief under this Consent

Decree shall be filed in writing with the Court and shall be served upon COWlsel for the

14

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 15 of 21�
United States and Defendants at least twenty (20) calendar days before the commencement of the hearing described in Paragraph 31, infra. The United States and/or Defendants may timely file with the Court a written reply to any such objection they deem appropriate.
31. This Court shall conduct a fairness hearing for the purpose ofresolving
any dispute among the parties over the Priority Hire Lists, as well as to resolve any
objections filed by Claimants under Paragraph 30, supra, regarding the individual relief to be awarded under this Consent Decree.
J. Notice of Determination, Acceptance ofReliefand Payment ofMonetary Relief
32. Within ten (10) calendar days from the date of the Cowt's detennination of all claims for remedial rclicfunder this Consent Decree following the fairness hearing referenced in Paragraph 31, supra, Defendants shall send by certified mail (return receipt requested) a "Notice of Determination" (as set forth in Appendix E) to each Claimant entitled to relief. The Notice of Determination shall be accompanied by a self-addressed stamped envelope and an "Acceptance of Relief and Release" fonn (as set forth in Appendix F), which the Claimant shall use to notify Defendants as to whether he/she desires accepts the relief offered. The Claimant shall have fifteen (15) calendar days from his/her receipt of the Notice of Determination and accompanying Acceptance of Relief and Release fonn in which to properly execute and return his/her Acceptance of Relief and Release form in order to receive any relief under this Consent Decree. If the Claimant notifies Defendants that he/she does not accept the relief, or does not return a properly executed Acceptance of Relief and Release form within the fifteen (15) day period, Defendants shall be released from any and all obligations to him/her under this
15

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ

Document 340-1

Filed 08/04/2005

Page 16 of 21�

-.::::~-

-. - .

Consent Decree except for good cause, as determined by the United States, subject to approval by the Court. If the Claimant notifies Defendants within the fifteen (15) day period that he/she accepts the relief, Defendants shall within forty-five (45) calendar days ofthe last timely returned Acceptance ofRelief and Release form, pay the Claimant the relief to which he/she is entitled.
K.. Hiring of Claimants 33. No less than ten (10) calendar days prior to Defendants' confmnation of hire of Priority Hire List A through I Claimants as candidates to Trooper recruit class(es) pursuant to this Consent Decree, Defendants shall provide the United States with a list of Claimants whom Defendants intend to hire, and identify those Claimants whom it has disqualified, stating the reasons for such disqualification. The parties shall seek to resolve any dispute concerning the disqualification of a Priority Hire List Claimant. If the parties arc unable to agree, the United States may move the Court for a resolution. However, Defendants shall not be enjoined from enrolling and commencing the remainder of the recruit class as planned. The burdens ofproof for the resolution of any p1iority hire, retroactive seniority and/or pension claim for individual relief under this Consent Decree that is disputed by Defendants shall be those set forth by the Supreme Court for Stage II proceedings after a finding of liability in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324 (1977). If such claim is successfully disputed by Defendants, the monetary relief that had been allocated by the United States for the Claimant may be reallocated by the United States for distribution among non-disputed and successful Claimants, subject to approval by the Court. However, no Claimant shall be denied monetary relief on the basis of being disqualified for priority hire so long as the Claimant met the qualifications for hire that were in effect at the time he or she
16

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 17 of 21�
initially applied. L. Information, Records. and Final Accounting 34. During the remedial relief process described herein, Defendants shall
maintain and retain all documents and infonnation relevant to the dissemination of remedial relief under this Consent Decree, and shall make such documents and information available to the United States uppn request.
35. Within forty-five (45) calendar days from the date of making the last monetary relief payments provided in Paragraphs 32 and 33, supra, or the last priority hire provided in Paragraphs IS and 16, supra, whichever is later, Defendants shall file with the Court and serve upon the United States a written report setting forth who accepted relief (both monetary and non-monetary), a description of the nature and amount of relief, whether any relief went undistributed and, if so, the reasons the relief was not distributed. As of the date of the issuance of such written report, back pay relief which remains tmdistributed due to Defendants' inability to locate Claimants after all reasonable efforts have been made shall revert to Defendants upon consent of the United States and approval ofthis Court.
V.
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 36. If the parties are unable to agree on a specific matter falling within the general provisions of this Consent Decree that contemplates mutual agreement, either party may move the Court for a resolution. 37. In the event this Consent Decree or its implementation is challenged, including any action claiming entitlement to damages against Defendants arising out of the implementation of this Consent Decree, Defendants and the United States shall fully
. 17

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 18 of 21�
defend the lawfulness of this Consent Decree. If any such collateral challenge arises in state court. Defendants shall promptly seek to remove such action to this Court.
38. The United States and Defendants shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees in this action.
39. Defendants may designate an agent to administer Defendants' administrative and financial obligations under this Consent Decree. The designated agent
shall not be liable for any actions it takes in good faith and in a manner consistent with
this Consent Decree. However. the designation of such an agent by Defendants in no way relieves Defendants from their obligations under this Consent Decree.
VI. EXPIRATION OF CONSENT DECREE 40. This Decree shall dissolve, and this action shall be dismissed, without further order of this Court at the end of thirty (30) months from the date of final approval and entry of this Consent Decree. The United States may move, for good cause, to extend the Consent Decree if the remedial relief called for herein has not been effectuated. The Consent Decree will not be extended, however, unless the Court grants the United States' motion. Any such extension may be granted by the Court only for such time as is necessary to effectuate the reliefset forth in this Consent Decree. PROVISIONALLY APPROVED subject to the fairness hearu:w-1ms--
~2005.
18

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 19 of 21�
(' --
APPROVED and ORDERED this _ _ _ day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2005. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 20 of 21�

On behalfofplaintiff United States ofAmerica:
BRADLEY J. SCHLOZMAN Acting Assistant Attorney General

On behalfofdefendants State ofDelaware et al.:

~
DAVID J. PALMER . Section Chief JOHN M. GADZICHOWSKI Principal Deputy Chief
BENJANITNJ.BLUSTE~
DERRICK L. BRENT Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section, Rm. 4500 Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3831 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005

~H·tJ~~
DAVID H. WILLIAMS Morris James Hitchens & Williams LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, lOth Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302) 888-6900 Facsimile: (302) 571-1750
tL..J V2n, f/Jl4-U
Thomas F. MacLeish Superintendent Delaware State Police 1441 N. DuPont Highway Dover, DE 19901

20

Case 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ Document 340-1 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 21 of 21�
On behalfofplaintiff United States ofAmerica:
RICHARD G. Al'IDREWS,
Acting United Sta By:L~C~~~:::A,­
Patricia c. Hannigan
Assistant United States Att m y The Nemours Building .1007 Orange Street, Suite 700 P. 0. Box 2046 Wi~ington, Delaware 19899-2046 (302) 573-6277 Patricia.Hanni gan@usdoj. gov
21

 
 IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURr,.,(o'R,i!S' lU'~.SL:':.CDiGLIFS[TG0RCiLCAT','!CAOR..UER"I

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

20

05

" '

U·A 'l, -

L
f

" .' 10' 16
fi ll •

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

) Civil Action No. 01-020-KAJ

THE STATE OF DELAWARE, THE

)

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF

)

PUBLIC SAFETY, and THE

)

DELAWARE DIVISION OF STATE

)

POLICE,

)

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This matter has been the subject of a partial summary judgment opinion (Docket Item ["D.I ,"] 262; the "Opinion") and post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law on liability (D,1. 305; the "Findings and Conclusions"). It now is before me again on the defendants' motion (D,1. 318; the "Motion") for an order establishing that a 70% ALERT cutoff score defines the lower bound of the pool of individuals who are presumptively entitled to relief. The Motion is denied .
I need not repeat the background information previously detailed in the Opinion and the Findings and Conclusions. Suffice it to say that, in the Findings and Conclusions, I determined that an ALERT score band of 66% to 70% corresponds to the minimum qualifications necessary to perform the entry-level Delaware State Trooper job. (D .1. 305 at p, 61,111117-18,) Despite that express holding, the defendants seek a ruling that th e upper end of that band represents the minimum score. Their request is disconcerting, to say the least. One would think, if one wanted

to select a single, lowest acceptable score in light of my earlier ruling, that the word "minimum," by definition, would lead one to look at the lower end of the stated range. Since that apparently was not clear, I make it so now. Based upon my earlier Findings and Conclusions, the single, minimum score on the ALERT corresponding to the minimum qualifications necessary to perform the entry-level Delaware State Trooper job is 66%. More detailed reasoning for this holding, if such were needed, is found in the plaintiffs memorandum in opposition to the Motion, which reasoning I adopt.
Accordingly, the defendants' Motion (D.I. 318) is hereby DENIED.
Wilmington, Delaware August4,2005
2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE STATE OF DELAWARE,

)

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF

)

PUBLIC SAFETY; and THE DELAWARE )

DIVISION OF STATE POLICE,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 01-020-KAJ

STIPULATION

For the following reasons, subject to the approval of the Court, the parties agree

that the two priority hire Claimants listed on Exhibit A hereto (referred to as Priority Hire

Claimants A and B), are eligible for priority hire pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree

approved and entered by this Court on September 22,2005.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED as follows:

1. The Delaware State Police ("DSP") has completed the process of

evaluating Claimants for priority hire pursuant to paragraph 13 of the Consent Decree. DSP

determined that the following Claimants are eligible for priority hiring:

Recruit Class No. 66 Recruit Class No. 69

Priority Hire Claimant A Priority Hire Claimant B

2. The United States agrees that Priority Hire Claimants A and B are eligible

for priority hire. The United States' agreement with respect to Priority Hire Claimants A and B

is not to be construed as an expression in any manner of the United States' position concerning

th~ disqualification of other priority hire Claimants or the validity of other priority hire Claimants' potential objections.
3. Paragraph 14 of the Consent Decree provides that "Defendants shall incorporate the Priority Hires into the first recruit class that commences after the Court rules on the Claimants' eligibility." The Consent Decree contemplates that the Court's ruling on the eligibility of priority hires will take place following the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief. It is anticipated the Fairness Hearing on Individual Relief will be scheduled in May, 2006.
4. The next recruit class for DSP recruits commences on March 20, 2006. If Priority Hire Claimants A and B are not placed in the recruit class that commences on March 20, 2006, the next opportunity to place Priority Hire Claimants A and B in a recruit class will occur in the fall of 2006. DSP, Priority Hire Claimants A and B, and the United States prefer to place Priority Hire Claimants A and B in the March 20, 2006 recruit class, rather than requiring that they wait until the fall of 2006 to commence their careers as Troopers.
5. Ruling on the eligibility of Priority Hire Claimants A and B in advance of the Fairness Hearing will not prejudice any other priority hire Claimant or their right to object to their disqualification from the priority hire selection process. The maximum number of Claimants entitled to priority hire in Recruit Class No. 66 and Recruit Class No. 69 is two in each class. There is one priority hire Claimant who may challenge DSP's eligibility determination in Recruit Class No. 66, and one priority hire Claimant who may challenge DSP's eligibility determination in Recruit Class No. 69. In the event such challenges are successful, the limitations on the number of Claimants entitled to priority hire in Recruit Class Nos. 66 and 69 will not preclude the hiring of the challengers.

MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS LLP

Assistant United States Attorney 1007 Orange Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 2046 Wilmington, DE 19899-2046 (302) 573-6277
Derrick L. Brent United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section, Room 4500 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616-9615 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
q, Dated: March 2006

David H. Williams (#616) 222 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 2306 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 888-6900 Attorneys for Defendants

IT IS SO ORDERED this _ day of _ _ _ _, 2006.

The Honorable Kent A. Jordan

DHWIl 02977-000 111 36230811

 
 United States v. Delaware
United States District Court for the District of Delaware May 20, 2003, Decided
Civil Action No. 01-020-KAJ

Reporter: 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8588; 91 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1480

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE

OF DELAWARE, THE DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF This employment discrimination case was filed by the United

PUBLIC SAFETY, and THE DELAWARE DIVISION OF States following a nearly four year investigation by

STATE POLICE, Defendants.

the U.S. Department of Justice into the hiring practices of the

Delaware State Police. (See Docket Item ["D.I."] 1 at P 12;

Subsequent History: Findings of fact/conclusions of law at D.I. 4 at P 13.) The United States charges [*2] that the State

United States v. Delaware, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4560 (D. of Delaware, the State's Department of Public Safety, and the

Del., Mar. 22, 2004)

Division of State Police ("DSP") within that department

(collectively, the "Defendants") have unlawfully used written

Disposition: [*1] United States' motion for partial summary examinations as part of the hiring process for the entry-level

judgment granted.

law enforcement position of DSP Trooper. (Id. at PP 8, 10.)

Counsel: Patricia C. Hannigan, Esquire, United States Attorney's Office, Wilmington, Delaware, Michael T. Kirkpatrick, Esquire and Benjamin J. Blustein, Esquire, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.;

More specifically, the accusation is that those examinations "have disproportionately excluded African Americans from employment but have not been shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity …." (Id. at P 10.)

counsel for plaintiff, United States of America.

The United States has made a motion for partial summary

Rosemary K. Killian, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, David H. Williams, Esquire, Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, and Robert J. Malionek, Esquire, Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, California; counsel for defendants, The State of Delaware, The Delaware Department of Public Safety, and The Delaware Division of State Police.

judgment (the "Motion"), contending that it has established a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (D.I. 233.) The United States claims that "undisputed facts establish that African American test takers passed the exam at issue at a significantly lower rate than white test takers." (Id.) The Court agrees that the United States has established a prima facie case that the Defendants' reliance upon the exam has had a disparate

impact upon African Americans, and, therefore, for the Judges: Kent A. Jordan, UNITED STATES DISTRICT reasons set forth herein, the Motion [*3] is granted. JUDGE.

Opinion by: Kent A. Jordan

II. BACKGROUND

Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Wilmington, Delaware May 20, 2003 JORDAN, District Judge

From 1981 through October of 1998, the DSP used a written test known as the "Alert" examination as part of the hiring process for DSP Troopers. (D.I. 242 at P 2.) 1 The Alert test measures reading comprehension and writing ability. 2(Id.) According to the Defendants, the Alert test "was the first step or hurdle in the multi-component process used by the Delaware State Police to identify and hire qualified applicants for the entry-level State Trooper position." (Id.) Bacause the Alert test "operated as a hurdle, … only applicants who passed [the test] proceeded in the process." (Id. at P 8.)

I. INTRODUCTION

[*4] Allegedly because of resource constraints, the DSP generally chose not to conduct a full background check on

1 Docket Item 242 is the Affidavit of John A. Dillman, III, a Director of Human Resources for the DSP, which affidvait was filed on behalf of the Defendants in their opposition to the Motion.
2 There are seven alternate forms of the Alert test. (Defendants' response to Request for Admission No. 5, reproduced at D.I. 235, Tab 1.) The DSP utilized several of those varieties over the years. (See D.I. 120 at P 1.m and Exhibit 1.)

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8588, *5

Page 2 of 5

test takers. (See id. at PP 3-4.) Instead, they relied on the simple screening that could be accomplished with a written application and limited checks of computer data bases. (See id.; D.I. 240 at 7.) They then relied on the Alert test as a means to narrow the field of applicants. (See D.I. 242 at P 2.) After administering the test, the Defendants invested further resources in the investigations necessary to determine whether those remaining in the applicant field met the other minimum standards for hiring. (See id. at PP 2-8.) Because the DSP

[*5] The recruiting classes at issue in this case are designated as classes 61 through 69. (D.I. 234 at 3; D.I. 240 at 7.) The parties have stipulated to basic facts regarding the racial composition of the test pool and the pass/fail status of individual test takers for each of those classes. 4 In aggregate, of the African Americans who took the Alert test over the period covered by recruit classes 61 through 69, 54.3% passed, while, over the same period, 84.8% of white test

approached hiring in this way, some unknown proportion of takers passed. (See D.I. 234 at 8 n. 7.) The parties hotly

the test takers actually turned out to be lacking certain dispute the practical significance of that disparity (see D.I. qualifications and were ineligible for employment, regardless 259 at 24-27), 5 but the Defendants have conceded that the

of their performance on the test. (See id. at P 4.) 3

difference is statistically significant (see id. at 27). The data are summarized in the following table. [*6]

DSP Recruit

Number of

Percent Passed

Difference in

Ratio of Pass

Class No.

Test Takers

Pass Rates in

Rates

AA

White AA

White

Units of Std.

AA/White

Deviation

61

41

236 51.2%

86.4%

5.11

59.3

62

68

388 61.8%

87.6%

5.16

70.5

63

39

228 56.4%

83.3%

3.63

67.7

64

49

408 42.9%

81.6%

5.95

52.6

65

30

209 70.0%

90.4%

2.87

77.4

66

38

289 47.4%

85.1%

5.33

55.7

67/68

39

313 33.3%

83.1%

6.82

40.1

69
6
69
7
III. DISCUSSION

28

55

39.3%

81.8%

6.82

48.0

44

154 52.3%

91.6%

5.87

57.1

applicable law: "only disputes over facts that might affect the

outcome of the suit under the governing laws will properly preclude

A. Summary Judgment Standard

the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). An

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, [*7] answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

issue of fact is "genuine" if there is evidence from which a rational person could conclude that the person opposing summary judgment is correct. See id.

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 judgment as a matter of law." Facts are "material" if their existence could alter the outcome in a case. Horowitz v. Federal Kemper Life Assur. Co., 57 F.3d 300, 302 n.1 (3d Cir. 1995). Hence, materiality must be determined in light of the

It is the moving party's initial responsibility "to show that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case[,]" or, in this instance, defense. See Peters Township School District v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 833 F.2d 32, 34 (3d Cir. 1987). The party opposing summary [*8] judgment

3 In addition to residency requirements, the minimum qualifications included (1) a high school diploma or GED and at least 60 semester or 90 quarter credit hours from an accredited college or university; (2) age of at least 21 years by the date of graduation from the police training academy; (3) U.S. citizenship; (4) a current, valid driver's license, with no conviction for driving under the influence within the prior five years and no suspension or revocation within the prior three years; (5) no use of any illegal drug within two years of application, and no use of any hallucinogenic drug at any time; and (6) no felony convictions and no criminal activity that would constitute a felony under the law of the state in which the conduct occurred. (See Defendants' response to Requests for Admission Nos. 108 and 109, reproduced at D.I. 235, Tab 3.)
4 The parties' stipulation is in the form of a compilation of information regarding individual test takers for the classes in question. (See D.I. 120 and Exhibit 1 thereto.) While the Defendants have not stipulated to accuracy of the summary table provided by the United States in its brief, neither have they contested those portions of the table reproduced here.
5 D.I. 259 is the transcript of the February 6, 2003 oral argument on the Motion.
6 Tested before May 30, 1998.
7 Tested on or after May 30, 1998.

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8588, *8

Page 3 of 5

cannot prevail "merely by making allegations; rather, the party (Defendants' emphasis), there can be no liability when, as in this

opposing the motion must go beyond its pleadings and designate case, the challenged practice is no longer in use. (Id. at 15.) That is

specific facts by use of affidavits, depositions, admissions, or an untenable interpretation, lacking any precedent or the benefit of

answers to interrogatories showing there is a genuine issue for trial." logic. As the United States has pointed out, the Defendants have not

In re Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., 277 F.3d 658, 666 (3d Cir. 2002). cited a single decision to support their argument, despite the deep

reservoir of available case law on Title VII. The reason is apparent.

B. Disparate Impact Analysis

The effect of such a reading would be [*11] to create an

instantaneous statute of limitations, to be triggered at the sole

The Third Circuit has instructed that, "under Title VII's disparate discretion of the employer whose practice is questioned: simply stop

impact theory of liability, plaintiffs establish a prima facie case of the challenged practice, and you are immune from suit. That result is

disparate impact by demonstrating that application of a facially obviously not contemplated by the statute and is at odds with the

neutral standard has resulted in a significantly discriminatory hiring remedies available for past discrimination. See, e.g.,42 U.S.C. §

pattern." Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority 2000e-5(g)(1) ("If the court finds that the respondent has

(SEPTA), 181 F.3d 478, 485 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Dothard v. intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful

Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 329, 53 L. Ed. 2d 786, 97 S. Ct. 2720 employment practice …," the court may impose affirmative

(1977)). The agreed upon facts in this case are compelling proof of injunctive relief, which may include reinstatement and hiring of

the disparate impact the Alert test has had on African American employees with back pay; emphasis added).

applicants for DSP Trooper positions. Over a period of several years

the administration of that examination has consistently had the effect Authority in this Circuit suggests that there is no statute of

of disqualifying African Americans at [*9] higher rates than limitations for cases brought by the Attorney General to remedy

whites. And while variations on the old theme of "lies, damned lies, patterns and practices of employment discrimination. See Lanning v.

and statistics" are often played to question mathematical evidence, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority, 176 F.R.D. 132, 144

there is no dispute in this case that the disparity is statistically (E.D. Pa. 1997). Moreover, the Defendants' position is akin to the

significant. (See D.I. 259 at 27.) That, of course, does not mean there discredited "voluntary cessation" argument for mootness. "As a

is no dispute about the statistics. In their effort to avoid the general rule, voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not

conclusion that the United States has made out a prima facie case of deprive the tribunal of power [*12] to hear and determine the case

an unlawful hiring practice, the Defendants have attacked the …." Id. at 142 (quoting County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S.

premise that pass rates among the test takers are the appropriate 625, 631, 59 L. Ed. 2d 642, 99 S. Ct. 1379 (1979)).

focus of the Court's attention.

The fact that the Defendants discontinued use of the Alert test after

According to the Defendants, there are three basic reasons why the the United States began to investigate their employment practices

Court ought not attend simply to the demonstrated disparities does not deprive the United States of the opportunity to seek redress

stemming from the Alert test. First, the Defendants contend that a for those affected over the years by the Defendants' use of that test,

prima facie case cannot be based on an employment practice that has should it finally be determined that the use was unlawful.

been discontinued. ((See D.I. 240 at 15-16.) Second, they claim that

the effects of the Alert test, as described by the United States, cannot ii. Actual Test Pool vs. Hypothetical Test Pool

be the basis of liability because not all test takers were qualified

applicants and therefore the pool of test takers is not a proper basis On better footing, the Defendants assert that "it is a bedrock

on which to measure the impact of the test on principle of Title VII that an employment practice causes an adverse

African [*10] Americans. (See id. at 16-21.) Finally, the Defendants impact only if it deprives qualified employment applicants … of the

assert that they have expert testimony that contradicts the conclusion employment opportunity at issue." (D.I. 240 at 16; emphasis in

that the Alert examination had an adverse affect upon African original). From that premise, the Defendants argue that the

Americans and that there is therefore a material issue of fact that statistically significant disparities produced by the Alert test are not

cannot be decided on summary judgment. (See id. at 22-24.) None of properly at issue since not everyone who was permitted to take the

those arguments is well-founded.

test was a qualified applicant. (Id. at 16-21.) The DSP receives

"hundreds of applications for each of the few positions in each

i. Past Practices

recruit class," and it [*13] does not first screen out those applicants

who lack the other qualifications to be a Trooper. 8 (Id. at 16.)

Placing peculiar emphasis on the tense of the words in the relevant Hence, the argument runs, because rigorous background checks were

statute, the Defendants assert that, because the burden of establishing not conducted before the examination and because experience

a prima facie case requires proof that "a respondent uses a particular showed that some test passers turned out to be otherwise unqualified,

employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of no proper conclusion can be drawn about disparate impact on

race[,]" 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)

qualified applicants, since the pool of

8 The Defendants do not contend that they entirely failed to screen test takers. Rather, their assertion is that only a rudimentary background check, based on the applicants' answers on the application form and a limited records check, was conducted prior to the administration of the test. (See D.I 240 at 7.)

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8588, *13

Page 4 of 5

test takers included non-qualified applicants. (Id. at 17.) According L. Ed. 2d 786, 97 S. Ct. 2720 (1977), "actual applicant flow figures

to the Defendants, the employment practice that should be focused are the preferred method by which to measure an employer's hiring

on is the entirety of the hiring process, not the first hurdle that they practice and performance." Anderson v. Douglas & Lomanson Co.,

erected. (See D.I. 240 at 20 ("The United States seeks to hold Inc., 26 F.3d 1277, 1287 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,513 U.S. 1149,

Defendants responsible for 'discriminating' against any black 130 L. Ed. 2d 1066, 115 S. Ct. 1099 (1995); cf. [*17] Green v. USX

applicant who failed ALERT, merely because he or she is in a class Corp., 896 F.2d 801, 804-05 (3d Cir.), cert. denied,498 U.S. 814,

of black applicants, and whether or not the applicant was qualified 112 L. Ed. 2d 29, 111 S. Ct. 53 (1990) ("plaintiffs' use of applicant

for employment.").)

flow data was an appropriate means of demonstrating the disparate

impact of USX's hiring practices ….").

[*14] While plausible, this argument has at its core a fundamental

flaw. It depends upon a definition of "qualified applicant" that Indeed, the defense theory presented in this case is reminiscent of the

ignores the Defendants' actual practices. With no more than the one emphatically rejected by the Supreme Court in Connecticut v.

assertion that some unknown number of test takers ultimately proved Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 73 L. Ed. 2d 130, 102 S. Ct. 2525 (1982). The

to have less than all qualifications for the job, 9 the Defendants Court in Teal was presented with a "bottom line" theory as a defense

demand that the Court ignore the actual results of the actual in a Title VII disparate impact case: "under that theory, … an

employment practice that they actually chose to use when deciding, employer's acts of racial discrimination in promotions - effected by

year after year, who was qualified to sit for the examination. The an examination having disparate impact -- would not render the

Defendants would thus have the Court turn a blind eye to the real employer liable … if the 'bottom-line' result of the promotional

world, in contravention of Title VII's focus on the "particular process was an appropriate racial balance." Id. at 442. In other

employment practice" at issue. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A).

words, the defendants urged, as the Defendants do in this case, that it

was the process, not the examination within the process, that was

[*15] The particular employment practice in which the Defendants relevant to the question of disparate impact. Because certain

engaged in this case involved limited pre-screening of applicants and adjustments were made in the promotion process that resulted in

the administration of an examination. That was, as the Defendants promoting [*18] African Americans at a favorable rate, the

themselves have characterized it, the first of a series of hurdles that defendants argued that 'the law should not attend to the disparate

were used to narrow the field of applicants. (See D.I. 242 at P 2.) impact imposed by the examination component of the process. See

While, at the end of the process, one must have met a series of id. 444-45. At the district court level, the defendants were successful,

qualifications to become a Trooper, the very first step involved the the court ruling that the "bottom line" percentages were what

pre-screening of a written application and some limited background counted. Id. at 445. The court of appeals, however, reversed, stating

checks to determine who qualified to sit for the examination. The that "where 'an identifiable pass-fail barrier denies an employment

"qualified to sit" phase of the multi-hurdle process may not have opportunity to a disproportionately large number of minorities and

perfectly matched the ultimate set of "qualified to serve" standards prevents them from proceeding to the next step in the selection

that the Defendants, through more rigorous background checks, process,' that barrier must be shown to be job related." Id. at 445

ultimately imposed on each class of applicants. That, however, does (quoting 645 F.2d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 1981)). The Supreme Court

not defeat the reality that year-in and year-out the Defendants affirmed that ruling by the court of appeals. Id. Reflecting on the

employed a de facto "qualified to sit" standard that resulted in a pool landmark holding in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 28 L.

of applicants who took the Alert test and thus produced the actual, Ed. 2d 158, 91 S. Ct. 849 (1971), the Court repeated that "Title VII

historical data that is now presented to the Court. To conclude that prohibits procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as built-in

the Defendants' own choices about how to screen the [*16] applicant headwinds for minority groups." 457 U.S. at 448-49 (quoting Griggs,

pool are not pertinent would be contrary both to the statutory 401 U.S. at 432; internal quotations omitted).

language of Title VII and the teachings of the Supreme Court in

disparate impact cases.

[*19] Strictly speaking, the Defendants in the case at bar are not

claiming that they did anything to overcome the statistically

As noted, the language of Title VII, as amended, focuses directly demonstrable disparate impact of the Alert test on the test taking

upon the use of "a particular employment practice that causes pool, so they cannot be said to be seeking shelter in favorable

disparate impact on the basis of race[.]" 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- "bottom line" statistics. They are, however, resorting to the plainly

2(k)(1)(A)(i). The question is not how the employer might have rejected theory that the law should ignore a significant hiring hurdle

approached the hiring process; the question is what did the employer in favor of some more global view of the selection process. That they

actually do. When historical data is available to answer that question, couch their argument in the language of "qualified applicants" vs.

it is all to the good, because, while "there is no requirement … that a "unqualified applicants" in the test pool does not alter the conclusion

statistical showing of disproportionate impact must always be based compelled by Teal and the cases cited therein. The Alert test has in

on analysis of the characteristics of actual applicants[,]" Dothard v. fact acted as a "built-in headwind" for African Americans.

Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 330, 53

9 The Defendants make the further assumption that African Americans must have been more likely than whites to have applied while lacking minimum qualifications. If one assumes that the number of "non-qualified" test takers, whatever that number is, is proportionately distributed among applicants, including African Americans and white applicants, then the existence of "non-qualified" test takers in the pool should have no impact on the statistical conclusions about disparate impact.

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8588, *19

Page 5 of 5

iii. Differing Expert Opinions

the motive of the Defendants in using the Alert test as a screening

tool. Motive is not at issue in a disparate impact case, and the Court

The Defendants' last line of argument is that even if the historical does not intend to imply by its decision today that anything other

data is the proper focus of the Court's attention, a factual dispute than a good faith effort to train well-qualified individuals lay behind

remains because the Defendants have obtained an expert report that the Defendants' use of that test. Nor should this Opinion be seen as a

employs a statistical analysis contradicting the disparate impact statement that the Defendants will, following a trial on the remaining

shown by the calculations of the United States' expert. (See D.I. 240 issues in the case, be held liable for violating Title VII. Today's

at 22-24.) The argument relies heavily on precedent that notes there decision disposes only of one part of the proof that would be

is no set "mathematical [*20] standard" for determining disparate required at trial. Whether reliance on the Alert test was a lawful

impact. (Id. at 23, citing Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust Co., employment practice is a decision that can only be made after the

487 U.S. 977, 995 n.3, 101 L. Ed. 2d 827, 108 S. Ct. 2777 (1988).) Defendants [*22] are afforded the opportunity to demonstrate that

But the law's recognition that "statistics come in infinite variety and the test measured "the minimum qualifications necessary for

… their usefulness depends on all surrounding facts and successful performance of the job in question[.]" Lanning, 181 F.3d

circumstances[,]" Watson, 487 U.S. at 995 n.3 (internal quotes at 487.

omitted), does not mean that there is no such thing as a clear case of

disparate impact. On the contrary, "to establish a prima facie case of An appropriate Order will follow.

discrimination, a plaintiff need only show that the facially neutral

standards in question select applicants for hire in a significantly ORDER

discriminatory pattern." Dothard, 433 U.S. at 329.

The Court having heard argument on the United States' Motion for

The United States has met that burden. The Defendants have not Partial Summary Judgment (D.I. 233; the "Motion") and having

challenged, and could not with any credibility challenge, the basic considered the parties' briefing in support and in opposition to the

math employed by the United States' expert. As set forth in the table Motion, as well as the pleadings and record in this matter, and

above, supra at 5, the evidence is overwhelming that the impact of finding that no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to

the Alert test was to disproportionately take African Americans out the subject of the Motion,

of the pool of applicants for Trooper positions. The Defendants

themselves have had to admit that the IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the

disparities [*21] demonstrated are statistically significant. (D.I. 259 Court's Opinion of today's date in this matter, the Motion is

at 27.) They want to argue about the practical significance by GRANTED.

utilizing different analytical techniques on the agreed-upon statistics. It is enough for the Court, however, that the historical data in fact Kent A. Jordan

demonstrates a statistically significant disparity in the impact of the

Alert test on African American applicants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

That such a disparity exists warrants the granting of the United DATE: May 20, 2003

States' Motion. It does not, of course, say anything at all about

Wilmington, Delaware

 
 U.S. District Court District of Delaware (Wilmington) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01-cv-00020-KAJ

U.S.A. v. State of Delaware, et al Assigned to: Honorable Kent A. Jordan Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 01/10/2001 Date Terminated: 07/21/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff USA

represented by Carl Schnee Bifferato Gentilotti Biden & Balick 1308 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 2165 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-1900 TERMINATED: 02/14/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colm F. Connolly U.S. Attorney's Office The Nemours Building 1007 Orange Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 2046 Wilmington, DE 19899-2046 (302) 573-6277 Email: colm.connolly@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/18/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia C. Hannigan U.S. Attorney's Office The Nemours Building 1007 Orange Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 2046 Wilmington, DE 19899-2046 (302) 573-6277 Fax: (302) 573-6220 Email:

patricia.hannigan@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard G. Andrews Delaware Department of Justice Criminal Division 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8805 Email: Rich.Andrews@state.de.us TERMINATED: 07/26/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant State of Delaware

represented by David H. Williams Morris James LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 2306 Wilmington, DE 19899-2306 (302) 888-6800 Email: dwilliams@morrisjames.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rosemary K. Killian Department of Justice State of Delaware 820 N. French Street, 8th Floor Carvel Office Building Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8500 TERMINATED: 07/20/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
State of Delaware Department of Public Safety

represented by David H. Williams (See above for address)

Defendant
Delaware Division of State Police

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rosemary K. Killian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/20/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David H. Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rosemary K. Killian (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/20/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/10/2001 01/10/2001 01/11/2001
01/17/2001 01/19/2001
01/31/2001
03/05/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; Mag consent notice to pltf. (dab) (Entered: 01/10/2001)

No summons issued. (dab) (Entered: 01/10/2001)

2 MOTION by U.S.A. with Proposed Order for Michael Kirkpatrick and Stephen Curran to Appear Pro Hac Vice (dab) (Entered: 01/12/2001)

3 CASE assigned to Judge Roderick R. McKelvie . Notice to all parties. (gp) (Entered: 01/17/2001)

So Ordered granting [2-1] motion for Michael Kirkpatrick and Stephen Curran to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Judge Roderick R. McKelvie ) Notice to all parties. (ntl) (Entered: 01/19/2001)

4 ANSWER to Complaint by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police (Attorney Rosemary K. Killian) (ntl) (Entered: 02/01/2001)

5 Letter from Judge McKelvie to counsel encl. draft proposed

03/29/2001 03/30/2001 04/02/2001 04/03/2001
04/06/2001 04/09/2001 04/10/2001
04/11/2001 04/11/2001
04/12/2001 04/23/2001

scheduling order. (ntl) (Entered: 03/06/2001)
6 Letter dated 3/28/01 from Michael Kirkpatrick, Esq. to Judge McKelvie re proposed scheduling order. (ntl) (Entered: 03/29/2001)
7 Letter from David Williams, Esq. to Judge McKelvie re request to postpone the 4/2/01 scheduling conference. (ntl) (Entered: 04/02/2001)
Tele-conference held; rprtr. K. Maurer (ntl) (Entered: 04/03/2001)
8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 1st set of interrogs. to State dfts (nos. 1-23), 1st set of requests for admission to State dfts (nos. 1-48), and 1st set of requests for prod. of docs. to State dfts (nos. 1-39). (ntl) (Entered: 04/04/2001)
9 Steno Notes for 4/2/01; rprtr. K. Maurer (ntl) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
10 NOTICE of attorney appearance for State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police by David H. Williams (ntl) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
11 MOTION by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police with Proposed Order for Wayne S. Flick, Esq., Robert J. Malionek, Esq. and Lisa Von Eschen, Esq. to Appear Pro Hac Vice (ntl) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
12 Letter from Wayne Flick, Esq. to Judge McKelvie re dfts' position on scheduling and related issues. (ntl) (Entered: 04/11/2001)
So Ordered granting [11-1] motion for Wayne S. Flick, Esq., Robert J. Malionek, Esq. and Lisa Von Eschen, Esq. to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Judge Roderick R. McKelvie ) Notice to all parties. (ntl) (Entered: 04/11/2001)
Tele-conference held; rprtr. K. Maurer (ntl) (Entered: 04/16/2001)
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re State Police's 1st set of requests for prod. of docs. to ptf (nos. 1-37); State Police's 1st set of requests for admission to ptf (nos. 1-60); State of Delaware's 1st set of interrogs. to ptf (nos. 1-13); and State Police's 1st set of interrogs. to ptf (nos. 1-16). (ntl) (Entered: 04/23/2001)

05/02/2001 05/02/2001 05/04/2001 05/17/2001 05/21/2001 05/21/2001
05/22/2001 05/22/2001 05/23/2001 05/29/2001 06/04/2001
06/04/2001
06/04/2001

14 Steno Notes for 4/12/01; rprtr. K. Maurer (ntl) (Entered: 05/02/2001)
15 TRANSCRIPT filed [0-0] telephone conference for dates of 4/12/01 (ntl) (Entered: 05/03/2001)
16 NOTICE by State of Delaware to take deposition of United States of America on 5/18/01 (ntl) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
17 TRANSCRIPT filed [0-0] telephone conference for dates of 4/2/01 (ntl) (Entered: 05/17/2001)
18 TRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER ( signed by Judge Roderick R. McKelvie ) copies to: cnsl. (ntl) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
19 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Status Report 1/10/02 Status Conference 4:30 1/17/02 Discovery cutoff 4/18/02 ; Deadline for filing dispositive motions 3/4/02 Pretrial conference for 4:30 6/3/02 ; Trial Date Deadline (10 day non-jury) 10:00 6/17/02 ; ( signed by Judge Roderick R. McKelvie ) copies to: cnsl. (ntl) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
20 ORDER, set Telephone Conference for 9:30 6/27/01 ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (ntl) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
21 Global Agreed Protective Order with proposed order (ntl) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
So Ordered granting [21-1] Global Agreed Protective Order ( signed by Judge Roderick R. McKelvie ) Notice to all parties. (ntl) (Entered: 05/24/2001)
22 Letter from David Williams, Esq. to Judge McKelvie re rescheduling of trial. (ntl) (Entered: 05/29/2001)
23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re response to ptf's 1st set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 139), response to ptf's 1st set of requests for admissions (nos. 148), and response to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 06/05/2001)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re response to ptf's 1st set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 139), response to ptf's 1st set of requests for admissions (nos. 148), and response to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 06/05/2001)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re response to ptf's 1st set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 1-39),

06/07/2001
06/26/2001 06/26/2001
06/27/2001 06/28/2001 06/28/2001 06/29/2001 07/24/2001 07/24/2001 07/24/2001 07/26/2001

response to ptf's 1st set of requests for admissions (nos. 1-48), and response to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 06/05/2001)
26 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER setting Status Report 1/29/02 Status Conference 4:30 2/5/02 Discovery cutoff 4/8/02 ; Deadline for filing dispositive motions 4/22/02 Pretrial conference for 4:30 7/22/02 ; Trial Date Deadline (10 day nonjury) 10:00 8/5/02 ; ( signed by Judge Roderick R. McKelvie ) copies to: cnsl. (ntl) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re initial disclosures (ntl) (Entered: 06/27/2001)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re response to State Police's 1st set of requests for admission, response to State of DE and State Police's 1st set of interrogs., response to State of DE's notice of 30(B)(6) deposition, response to State Police's 1st set of requests for prod. of docs., and initial disclosures. (ntl) (Entered: 06/27/2001)
29 ORDER, set Mediation Conference for 10:00 10/18/01 (tentative) , conference statements due 10/9/01, and set Telephone Conference for 9:30 9/25/01 ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (ntl) (Entered: 06/28/2001)
30 MOTION by U.S.A. with Proposed Order for Sharon A. Seeley, Esq. to Appear Pro Hac Vice (ntl) (Entered: 06/29/2001)
31 Joint FRCP 26(f) Report (ntl) (Entered: 06/29/2001)
So Ordered granting [30-1] motion for Sharon A. Seeley, Esq. to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Judge Roderick R. McKelvie ) Notice to all parties. (ntl) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re its amended resp. to pltf's 1st set of interrogs. (bkb) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re its 1st amended resp. to pltf's 1st set interrogs. (bkb) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re its 1st amended resp to pltf's 1st set interrogs. (bkb) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
Tele-conference held; rprtr. B. Gaffigan (ntl) (Entered: 07/31/2001)

07/27/2001 07/30/2001 07/31/2001 08/01/2001 08/02/2001 09/05/2001 09/10/2001 09/11/2001 10/17/2001 10/19/2001 11/02/2001 11/14/2001
11/16/2001 11/29/2001 11/29/2001

Tele-conference held; rprtr. K. Maurer (ntl) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
35 Steno Notes for 7/27/01; rprtr. K. Maurer (ntl) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
36 TRANSCRIPT filed [0-0] telephone conference for dates of 7/26/01 (ntl) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
37 Steno Notes for 7/26/01; rprtr. B. Gaffigan (ntl) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
38 TRANSCRIPT filed [0-0] telephone conference for dates of 7/27/01 (ntl) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
39 RESPONSE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police in opposition to subpoena served on Wollack & Associates, Inc. (ntl) (Entered: 09/05/2001)
40 MOTION by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police with Proposed Order for Robert J. Schulze, Esq. to Appear Pro Hac Vice (ntl) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
So Ordered granting [40-1] motion for Robert J. Schulze, Esq. to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Judge Roderick R. McKelvie ) Notice to all parties. (ntl) (Entered: 09/11/2001)
41 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re 2nd amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
42 ORDER, set continued Mediation Conference for 10:00 3/8/02 , no further submissions are necessary; ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (ntl) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
43 First REQUEST by U.S.A. for entry upon land. (ntl) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
44 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 2nd set of interrogs. to State defendants (no. 24), and 2nd set of requests for admission to State defendants (nos. 49-109). (ntl) (Entered: 11/15/2001)
45 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re notice of rule 30(b)(6) deposition and rule 30(b)(5) request for prod. of docs. (ntl) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re 2nd set of interrogs. to ptf (no. 14). (ntl) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re 1st

11/29/2001 11/29/2001 11/29/2001 11/29/2001 11/29/2001 12/03/2001 12/06/2001
12/06/2001
12/06/2001 12/06/2001 12/06/2001

amended response to ptf's 1st set of requests for admissions (nos. 1-48). (ntl) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re 1st amended response to ptf's 1st set of requests for admission (nos. 1-48). (ntl) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
49 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re 1st amended response to ptf's 1st set of requests for admission (nos. 1-48). (ntl) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
50 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re 2nd amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
51 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re 2nd amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
52 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re 2nd amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
53 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re 2nd set of requests for admission to ptf (nos. 61-159). (ntl) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
54 MOTION by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police with Proposed Order for Partial Summary Judgment re alternative employment practices Answer Brief due 12/20/01 re: [54-1] motion (ntl) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
55 Opening Brief Filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police [54-1] motion for Partial Summary Judgment re alternative employment practices (ntl) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
56 AFFIDAVIT of John A. Dillman III Re: [54-1] motion for Partial Summary Judgment re alternative employment practices (ntl) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
57 NOTICE of Filing of Discovery Materials by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police (ntl) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
58 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 1st amended response to State Police's 1st set of requests for admission; 1st amended response to State of Delaware and State Police 1st sets of interrogs. (ntl) (Entered: 12/07/2001)

12/06/2001 12/06/2001 12/12/2001 12/12/2001
12/13/2001 12/13/2001 12/13/2001 12/17/2001 12/19/2001 12/19/2001 12/20/2001 12/20/2001

59 STIPULATION with proposed agreed order further modifying 6/7/01 scheduling order and setting briefing schedule for motions to compel and for partial summary judgment. (ntl) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
60 Letter from counsel to Judge McKelvie re D.I. 59. (ntl) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
So Ordered granting [59-1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Roderick R. McKelvie ) Notice to all parties. (ntl) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
Deadline updated; reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Discovery deadline on 6/10/02 Deadline for filing dispositive motions by 6/24/02 Pretrial conference by 10:00 9/30/02 Trial Date Deadline (10 day non-jury) 10:00 10/28/02 (ntl) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
61 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re 3rd amended response to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 12/17/2001)
62 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re 3rd amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 12/17/2001)
63 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re 3rd amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 12/17/2001)
64 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re response to ptf's 2nd set of requests for admission (nos. 49-109). (ntl) (Entered: 12/17/2001)
65 STIPULATION: it is unnecessary for the Court to rule upon dfts' motion for partial summary judgment re alternative employment practices, and that motion is hereby withdrawn. (ntl) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
WITHDRAWAL of [54-1] motion for Partial Summary Judgment re alternative employment practices (ntl) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
66 MOTION by U.S.A. with Proposed Order to Compel interrogatory responses and document production Answer Brief due 1/3/02 re: [66-1] motion (ntl) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
67 Opening Brief Filed by U.S.A. [66-1] motion to Compel interrogatory responses and document production (ntl) (Entered: 12/20/2001)

12/20/2001 12/20/2001 12/20/2001 12/20/2001 12/20/2001 01/07/2002 01/09/2002
01/09/2002 01/09/2002
01/09/2002 01/09/2002 01/15/2002 01/16/2002

68 MOTION by U.S.A. with Proposed Order for relief from the Global Agreed Protective Order Answer Brief due 1/3/02 re: [68-1] motion (ntl) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
69 Opening Brief Filed by U.S.A. [68-1] motion for relief from the Global Agreed Protective Order (ntl) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
70 Appendix to Brief Filed by U.S.A. Appending [69-1] opening brief, [67-1] opening brief (ntl) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
71 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re response to State Police's 2nd set of requests for admission; and response to State of Delaware's 2nd set of interrogs. (ntl) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
72 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re response to ptf's 2nd set of interrogs. (nos. 24). (ntl) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
73 Letter from Judge McKelvie to counsel re resignation. (ntl) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
74 Answer Brief Filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police [68-1] motion for relief from the Global Agreed Protective Order - Reply Brief due 1/16/02 (ntl) (Entered: 01/10/2002)
75 Appendix to Brief Filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police Appending [74-1] answer brief (ntl) (Entered: 01/10/2002)
76 Answer Brief Filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police [66-1] motion to Compel interrogatory responses and document production - Reply Brief due 1/16/02 (ntl) (Entered: 01/10/2002)
77 Appendix to Brief Filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police Appending [76-1] answer brief (ntl) (Entered: 01/10/2002)
78 NOTICE of filing of discovery materials by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police (ntl) (Entered: 01/10/2002)
79 MOTION by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police with Proposed Order for Blair G. Connelly, Esq. to Appear Pro Hac Vice (ntl) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
80 Reply Brief Filed by U.S.A. [68-1] motion for relief from the Global Agreed Protective Order (ntl) (Entered: 01/17/2002)

01/16/2002 01/17/2002 01/22/2002
01/23/2002 01/24/2002 01/24/2002 02/04/2002 02/05/2002 02/07/2002 02/07/2002 02/07/2002 02/14/2002
02/14/2002

81 Reply Brief Filed by U.S.A. [66-1] motion to Compel interrogatory responses and document production (ntl) (Entered: 01/17/2002)
So Ordered granting [79-1] motion for Blair G. Connelly, Esq. to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Judge Roderick R. McKelvie ) Notice to all parties. (ntl) (Entered: 01/17/2002)
82 REQUEST by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police for oral argument on ptf's motion to compel and motion for relief from the global agreed protective order. (ntl) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
83 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 3rd set of requests for prod. of docs. to State dfts. (nos. 48-68). (ntl) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
84 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re requests for observation to State Defendants (nos. 48-68). (ntl) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
85 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 1st amended response to dft State Police's 2nd set of requests for admission (nos. 61-159). (ntl) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
86 Letter from Judith Kinney, Esq. to Judge McKelvie re matters for telephone conference on 2/5/02 at 4:30. (ntl) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
Tele-conference held; rprtr. Hawkins rptg. (ntl) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
87 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re 2nd set of requests for prod. of docs. to ptf (nos. 38-53). (ntl) (Entered: 02/07/2002)
88 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 4th set of requests for prod. of docs. to State dfts (no. 69). (ntl) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
89 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 2nd notice of rule 30(b)(6) deposition. (ntl) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
90 ORDER, set Telephone Conference for 11:00 5/3/02 , and reset (tentative) Mediation Conference for 9:30 6/3/02 , any supplemental submissions due 5/24/02; ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (ntl) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
91 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re amended second notice of rule 30(b)(6) deposition. (ntl) (Entered: 02/15/2002)

02/19/2002 02/21/2002 02/21/2002 02/22/2002 02/25/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002

Tele-conference held; rprtr. K. Maurer (ntl) (Entered: 02/21/2002)
92 Steno Notes for 2/19/02; rprtr. K. Maurer (ntl) (Entered: 02/21/2002)
93 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re third, fourth and fifth notice of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. (ntl) (Entered: 02/21/2002)
94 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re response to ptf's 3rd set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 48-68). (ntl) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
95 TRANSCRIPT filed [0-0] telephone conference for dates of 2/19/02 (ntl) (Entered: 02/25/2002)
96 MOTION by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police with Proposed Order for Protective Order Answer Brief due 3/12/02 re: [96-1] motion (ntl) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
97 Opening Brief Filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police [96-1] motion for Protective Order (ntl) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
98 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re response to ptf's 2nd set of requests for admission (nos. 49-109). (ntl) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
99 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re 2nd amended response to ptf's 1st set of requests for admission (nos. 1-48). (ntl) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
100 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re 4th amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
101 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re 4th amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re 4th amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
103 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re 2nd amended response to ptf's 1st set of requests for admission (nos. 1-48). (ntl) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
104 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re 2nd

03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/06/2002 03/06/2002 03/06/2002 03/08/2002 03/08/2002
03/18/2002
03/22/2002 03/28/2002

amended responses to ptf's 1st set of requests for admission (nos. 1-48). (ntl) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
105 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re 1st amended response to ptf's 2nd set of requests for admission (nos. 49-109). (ntl) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
106 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re response to ptf's 2nd set of requests for admission (nos. 49-109). (ntl) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
107 MOTION by U.S.A. with Proposed Order for Benjamin J. Blustein, Esq. to Appear Pro Hac Vice (ntl) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
108 Letter dated 3/5/02 from counsel to Judge McKelvie re stipulation and joint proposed order with respect to dfts' motion for protective order and expert disclosures. (ntl) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
109 STIPULATION with proposed order further modifying 6/7/01 scheduling order and withdrawing motion for protective order. (ntl) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
So Ordered granting [107-1] motion for Benjamin J. Blustein, Esq. to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting [109-1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Roderick R. McKelvie ) Notice to all parties. (ntl) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
Deadline updated; reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Discovery deadline on 8/9/02 Deadline for filing dispositive motions by 8/23/02 Pretrial conference by 2:00 11/29/02 Trial Date Deadline (10 day bench) 10:00 1/21/03 , set Status Report deadline to 5/17/02 , set Status Conference by telephone for 5/21/02 (ntl) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
110 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 2nd amended response to State Police's interrog. nos. 4 and 7, 2nd amended response to State Police's request for admission no. 47, and 1st amended response to State Police's request for admission nos. 77-81, 156 and 157. (ntl) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
111 Second NOTICE by State of Delaware to take deposition of United States on 4/1/02 (ntl) (Entered: 03/25/2002)
112 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re 3rd amended response to ptf's 1st set of requests for admission (nos. 1-48). (ntl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

03/28/2002 03/28/2002
03/28/2002
03/28/2002
03/29/2002
03/29/2002
03/29/2002 04/04/2002 04/04/2002 04/08/2002 04/08/2002 04/09/2002 04/09/2002

113 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re 5th amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
114 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re 1st amended response to ptf's 3rd set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 48-68). (ntl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
115 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re 1st amended response to ptf's 1st set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 1-39). (ntl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
116 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re 1st and 2nd amended response to ptf's 2nd set of requests for admission (nos. 49-109). (ntl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
117 MOTION by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police with Proposed Order to Compel responses to written discovery and deposition of plaintiff Answer Brief due 4/12/02 re: [117-1] motion (ntl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
118 Opening Brief Filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police [117-1] motion to Compel responses to written discovery and deposition of plaintiff (ntl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
119 NOTICE of Filing Discovery Materials by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police (ntl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
120 First Set of Stipulated Facts (Regarding Certain Delaware State Police Applicant Information). (ntl) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
121 Attachments to First Set of Stipulated Facts (D.I. 120) {SEALED}. (ntl) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re response to dft State Police's 2nd set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 38-53). (ntl) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
123 Ptf United States' disclosure of expert testimony of Bernard R. Siskin, Ph.D. (ntl) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
124 NOTICE by DE Div State Police to take deposition of Bernard R. Siskin on 4/15/02 (ntl) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
125 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of

04/09/2002 04/09/2002
04/09/2002 04/09/2002 04/11/2002
04/12/2002 04/12/2002 04/12/2002 04/12/2002 04/15/2002 04/17/2002 04/17/2002

Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re disclosure of expert testimony and written report by P.R. Jeanneret, Ph.D. (ntl) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
126 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re response to ptf's 4th set of requests for prod. of docs. (no. 69). (ntl) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
127 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re disclosure of expert testimony and written report by Stephen Wollack, Ph.D. (ntl) (Entered: 04/10/2002)
128 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re response to ptf's 4th set of requests for prod. of docs. (no. 69). (ntl) (Entered: 04/10/2002)
129 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re response to ptf's 4th set of requests for prod. of docs. (no. 69). (ntl) (Entered: 04/10/2002)
130 NOTICE of Filing of Discovery Materials by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re (1) Validation of the ALERT Examination in the Delaware State Police and (2) Criterion-related validation of the ALERT entry-level law enforcement exam for selecting State troopers. (ntl) (Entered: 04/11/2002)
131 NOTICE of Filing Discovery Materials by U.S.A. (ntl) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
132 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of John A. Dillman III on a date to be determined. (ntl) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
133 Answer Brief Filed by U.S.A. [117-1] motion to Compel responses to written discovery and deposition of plaintiff Reply Brief due 4/19/02 (ntl) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
134 Appendix to Brief Filed by U.S.A. Appending [133-1] answer brief (ntl) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
135 Errata Re: Validation of the Alert Examination in the Delaware State Police [Expert Disclosure on behalf of defendants]. (ntl) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
136 Letter from David Williams, Esq. to Judge McKelvie re request for oral argument on dfts' motion to compel responses to written discovery and deposition of ptf. (ntl) (Entered: 04/17/2002)
137 Letter from Judith Kinney, Esq. to Judge McKelvie re request

04/18/2002 04/23/2002
04/24/2002 04/24/2002 04/24/2002 04/24/2002 04/24/2002 04/24/2002 04/24/2002 04/24/2002 04/24/2002 04/24/2002

that oral argument on pending motion to compel be held in open court. (ntl) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
138 Reply Brief Filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police [117-1] motion to Compel responses to written discovery and deposition of plaintiff (ntl) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
139 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 3rd amended response to State Police's interrog. no. 4 and 7 and 2nd amended response to the remainder of State Police's 1st set of interrogs. and to State of DE's 1st set of interrogs; 1st amended response to State of DE's notice of deposition of ptf USA; 3rd amended response to dft State Police's request for admission no. 47 and 2nd amended response to the remainder of State Police's 1st set of requests for admission; and 4th amended response to State Police's request for admission nos. 156-157, 3rd amended response to request for admission nos. 77-81, and 2nd amended response to the remainder of State Police's 2nd set of requests for admission. (ntl) (Entered: 04/23/2002)
140 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 2nd request for entry upon land; and 5th set of requests for prod. of docs. to State defendants (nos. 70-83). (ntl) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
141 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of Scott M. Barnett on 5/30/02 (ntl) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
142 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of TFC Widdoes on 5/30/02 (ntl) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
143 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of Blaine M. Daisey on 5/30/02 (ntl) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
144 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of Colby A. Cox on 5/30/02 (ntl) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
145 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of Keith R. Mark on 5/30/02 (ntl) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
146 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of Alexander Peterson III on 5/29/02 (ntl) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
147 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of John A. Yeomans on 5/29/02 (ntl) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
148 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of Elizabeth Becker, Ph.D. on 5/23/02 (ntl) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
149 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of Stephen Wollack, Ph.D. on 5/21/02 (ntl) (Entered: 04/25/2002)

04/24/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/06/2002 05/08/2002 05/08/2002 05/08/2002 05/08/2002 05/16/2002 05/16/2002 05/17/2002 05/17/2002 05/22/2002

150 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of P.R. Jeanneret, Ph.D. on 5/9/02 (ntl) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
151 MOTION by U.S.A. with Proposed Order to Compel Discovery Responses Answer Brief due 5/16/02 re: [151-1] motion (ntl) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
152 Opening Brief Filed by U.S.A. [151-1] motion to Compel Discovery Responses (ntl) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
153 Appendix to Brief Filed by U.S.A. Appending [152-1] opening brief (ntl) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
154 NOTICE of Filing Discovery Materials by U.S.A. in support of its motion to compel discovery responses. (ntl) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
155 ORDER, reset Settlement Conference for 9:00 8/6/02 ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: counsel (bkb) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
156 Defendants' Supplemental Disclosure of Expert Testimony (ntl) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
157 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re amended response to ptf's 4th set of requests for production of documents (no. 69). (ntl) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
158 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re amended response to ptf's 4th set of requests for prod. of docs. (no. 69). (ntl) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
159 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re amended response to ptf's 4th set of requests for prod. of docs. (no. 69). (ntl) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
160 Appendix A to Dr. Stephen Wollack's "Validation of the QB Examination in the Delaware State Police" {SEALED}. (ntl) (Entered: 05/16/2002)
161 NOTICE of Filing of D.I. 160 by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police (ntl) (Entered: 05/16/2002)
162 Joint Interim Status Report and STIPULATION and Agreed Order Further Modifying the Revised Scheduling Order. (ntl) (Entered: 05/20/2002)
163 Letter dated 5/16/02 from counsel to Judge McKelvie re D.I. 162. (ntl) (Entered: 05/20/2002)
164 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re 6th

05/22/2002 05/22/2002 05/24/2002 05/24/2002 05/24/2002 06/14/2002 06/14/2002 06/20/2002 06/27/2002 06/27/2002
06/27/2002
07/01/2002

amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
165 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re 6th amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
166 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re 6th amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
167 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re response to ptf's 5th set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 70-83). (ntl) (Entered: 05/24/2002)
168 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re response to ptf's 5th set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 7083). (ntl) (Entered: 05/24/2002)
169 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re response to ptf's 5th set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 7083). (ntl) (Entered: 05/24/2002)
170 CASE reassigned to Vacant Judgeship . Notice to all parties. (rwc) Modified on 06/14/2002 (Entered: 06/14/2002)
CASE REFERRED to Judge Mary P. Thynge (rwc) (Entered: 06/14/2002)
171 ORDER: the continued mediation scheduled for 8/6/02 at 9:00 is canceled; terminated deadlines ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (ntl) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
172 Disclosure of amended expert testimony by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police (ntl) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
173 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re 3rd amended response to ptf's 2nd set of requests for admission (nos. 49-109). (ntl) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
174 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re 4th amended response to ptf's 1st set of requests for admission (nos. 1-48). (ntl) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
175 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police RE Seventh Amended Responses to Pltf's First Set of Interrogatories (nos 1-23) (dab)

07/12/2002 07/12/2002 07/12/2002 07/12/2002 07/16/2002 07/16/2002 07/26/2002 07/29/2002 08/01/2002
08/02/2002

(Entered: 07/02/2002)
176 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 1st amended response to State Police's 2nd set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 38-53). (ntl) (Entered: 07/15/2002)
177 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re suppl. disclosure of expert testimony and written reports of Drs. Siskin, Goldstein and Kadane, with tables, exhibits and appendices. (ntl) (Entered: 07/15/2002)
178 NOTICE of Filing by U.S.A. (under seal) of appendix A to Dr. Bernard R. Siskin's rebuttal report in response to April 2002 report of Dr. P.R. Jeanneret. (ntl) (Entered: 07/15/2002)
179 Appendix A to rebuttal report in response to April 2002 report of Dr. P.R. Jeanneret by Bernard R. Siskin, Ph.D. (July 9, 2002) {SEALED}. (ntl) (Entered: 07/15/2002)
180 Final Pretrial and Trial Management Order ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (ntl) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
181 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER setting Deadline for filing dispositive motions 12/20/02 Pretrial conference for 10:00 3/3/03 ; ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (ntl) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
182 **Terminated attorney Richard G. Andrews for U.S.A. Notice of attorney appearance for U.S.A. by Patricia C. Hannigan (ntl) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
183 Letter dated 7/19/02 from Wayne Flick, Esq. and Michael Kirkpatrick, Esq. to Judge Thynge re designation of experts. (ntl) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
184 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 4th amended response to State Police's interrog. nos. 4 and 7 and 3rd amended response to remainder of State Police's 1st set of interrogs. and State of DE's 1st set of interrogs; 2nd amended response to State of DE's notice of deposition; 4th amended response to State Police's request for admission no. 47 and 3rd amended response to remainder of State Police's 1st set of requests for admission; and 5th amended response to State Police's request for admission nos. 156-157, 4th amended response to request for admission nos. 77-81, and 3rd amended response to remainder of State Police's 2nd set of requests for admission. (ntl) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
Tele-conference held (J. Thynge); rprtr. K. Maurer (ntl)

08/02/2002 08/02/2002 08/02/2002 08/02/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002 08/22/2002
09/16/2002
09/16/2002 09/20/2002 09/20/2002 09/20/2002

(Entered: 08/02/2002)
185 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re notice of deposition of Dr. Bernard R. Siskin. (ntl) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
186 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re notice of deposition of Dr. Harold W. Goldstein. (ntl) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
187 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re notice of deposition of Dr. Joseph B. Kadane. (ntl) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
188 Steno Notes for 8/2/02; rprtr. K. Maurer (ntl) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
189 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re 3rd set of requests for admission to ptf (nos. 160-184). (ntl) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
190 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re 5th set of requests for prod. of docs. to ptf (nos. 70-76). (ntl) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
191 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 3rd set of requests for admission to State defendants (nos. 110-174); and 6th set of requests for prod. of docs. to State defendants (nos. 84-92). (ntl) (Entered: 08/22/2002)
192 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re response to State Police's 3rd set of requests for admission (nos. 160-184); and response to State Police's 5th set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 70-76). (ntl) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
193 NOTICE of subpoena duces tecum of Pennsylvania State Police by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police (ntl) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
194 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re response to ptf's 6th set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 8492). (ntl) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
195 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re response to ptf's 3rd set of requests for admission (nos. 110-174) (ntl) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
196 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re response to ptf's 3rd set of requests for admission (nos. 110-174). (ntl) (Entered: 09/23/2002)

09/20/2002 09/20/2002 09/20/2002 10/10/2002
10/15/2002 10/15/2002 10/22/2002 10/22/2002 10/24/2002 11/08/2002 11/08/2002 11/08/2002 11/08/2002

197 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re response to ptf's 3rd set of requests for admission (nos. 110174). (ntl) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
198 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware re response to ptf's 6th set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 84-92). (ntl) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
199 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DE Div State Police re response to ptf's 6th set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 8492). (ntl) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
200 STIPULATION with agreed proposed order modifying the scheduling order: discovery cutoff 12/10/02; dfts' suppl. expert disclosure by 11/8/02; all dates set forth in the amended scheduling order (D.I. 181) remain unchanged. (ntl) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
So Ordered granting [200-1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) Notice to all parties. (ntl) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
Deadline updated; reset Discovery deadline to 12/10/02 (ntl) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re 1st set of interrogs. to ptf (nos. 1-2). (ntl) (Entered: 10/23/2002)
202 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re 1st set of requests for prod. to ptf (nos. 1-376). (ntl) (Entered: 10/23/2002)
203 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety re 1st set of requests for admission to ptf (nos. 1-376). (ntl) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
204 Disclosure of Expert Opinion by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police (ntl) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
205 Appendix A to Dr. Stephen Wollack's rebuttal expert report (D.I. 204) by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police {SEALED}. (ntl) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re 4th set of requests for admission to State dfts (nos. 175-182). (ntl) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
207 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re 1st amended response to ptf's 3rd set of requests for admission (nos. 110-174). (ntl) (Entered: 11/12/2002)

11/08/2002
11/08/2002
11/08/2002
11/08/2002 11/21/2002 11/21/2002 11/21/2002 11/21/2002
11/26/2002 11/26/2002 11/26/2002 11/27/2002 12/02/2002 12/03/2002

208 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re 2nd amended response to ptf's 1st set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 1-39). (ntl) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
209 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re 4th amended response to ptf's 2nd set of requests for admission (nos. 49-109). (ntl) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
210 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re 5th amended response to ptf's 1st set of requests for admission (nos. 1-48). (ntl) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
211 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re 8th amended responses to ptf's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-23). (ntl) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
212 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of Elizabeth Becker, Ph.D. on 12/4/02 (ntl) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
213 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of P.R. Jeanneret, Ph.D. on 12/5/02 (ntl) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
214 NOTICE by U.S.A. to take deposition of Stephen Wollack, Ph.D. on 12/6/02 (ntl) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
215 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A. re response to dft DE Dept. of Public Safety's 1st set of interrogs. (nos. 1-2), 1st set of requests for prod. of docs. (nos. 1-376), and 1st set of requests for admission (nos. 1-376). (ntl) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
216 NOTICE by State of Delaware to take deposition of Anthony L. Easterling on 12/9/02 (ntl) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
217 NOTICE by State of Delaware to take deposition of Michael F. Hertzfeld on 12/9/02 (ntl) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
218 NOTICE by State of Delaware to take deposition of Jayson A. Jeffers on 12/9/02 (ntl) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
219 ORDER, set Telephone Conference for 12:00 12/6/02 ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (ntl) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
220 NOTICE by State of Delaware to take deposition of Deshawn L. Price on 12/9/02 (ntl) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
221 Letter from Patricia Hannigan, Esq. to Judge Thynge re 12/6/02

12/03/2002 12/04/2002 12/06/2002
12/06/2002 12/06/2002 12/06/2002 12/06/2002 12/06/2002 12/06/2002 12/09/2002
12/09/2002 12/13/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002

teleconference. (ntl) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
222 Letter from Wayne Flick, Esq. to Judge Thynge re discovery dispute. (ntl) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
223 Letter from P. Hannigan, Esq. and M. Kirkpatrick, Esq. to Judge Thynge re discovery dispute to be discussed during 12/6/02 teleconference. (ntl) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
224 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police re responses to ptf's 4th set of requests for admission (nos. 175-182). (ntl) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
225 Subpoena for Anthony L. Easterling served 11/27/02. (rwc) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
226 Subpoena for Jayson A. Jeffers served 12/2/02. (rwc) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
227 Subpoena for Michael F. Hertzfeld served 12/2/02. (rwc) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
228 Subpoena for Deshawn L. Price served 12/5/02. (rwc) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
Tele-conference held (J. Thynge); rprtr. V. Gunning (ntl) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
230 ORDER - that discovery motions [DI#'s 66, 68, 117 & 151] have been resolved and are therefore moot. ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
229 ORDER - that the transcript of the teleconference held on 12/6/02 shall serve as the Order of the Court regarding Deft's Motion to Compel [DI# 222]. ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
231 Supplemental Disclosures of Expert Testimnony filed by U.S.A. (rwc) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
232 TRANSCRIPT filed [0-0] telephone conference for dates of 12/6/02 (ntl) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
233 MOTION by U.S.A. with Proposed Order for Partial Summary Judgment Answer Brief due 1/3/03 re: [233-1] motion (rwc) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
234 Opening Brief Filed by U.S.A., in support of [233-1] motion for Partial Summary Judgment - Answer Brief due 1/3/03 (rwc) (Entered: 12/23/2002)

12/20/2002 12/23/2002 01/06/2003 01/08/2003 01/08/2003
01/08/2003
01/08/2003 01/08/2003 01/09/2003
01/10/2003 01/13/2003
01/13/2003

235 Appendix to Brief Filed by U.S.A. Appending [234-1] opening brief. (rwc) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
236 NOTICE by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police to take deposition of Bernard R. Siskin on 1/3/03 at 12:00 p.m. (rwc) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
237 CASE reassigned to Judge Kent A. Jordan (CASE NO LONGER REFERRED TO Magistrate Judge Mary P. Thynge ) Notice to all parties. (rbe) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
238 DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT OPINION filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police. (rwc) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
239 Letter dated 1/8/03 to Judge Jordan by Wayne S. Flick, Esq., on behalf of Defts, requesting oral argument Re: Motion [233-1] for Summary Judgment. (rwc) Modified on 01/09/2003 (Entered: 01/09/2003)
240 Answer Brief Filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police, in opposition to [233-1] motion for Partial Summary Judgment - Reply Brief due 1/15/03 (rwc) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
241 Appendix to Brief Filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police Appending [240-1] answer brief. (rwc) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
242 AFFIDAVIT of John A. Dillman III, filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police, in support of [240-1] answer brief (rwc) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
243 Letter dated 1/9/03 by Judge Jordan to parties Re: oral argument. Counsel is to notify the Court by 1/15/03 of anticipated time needed for argument. (rwc) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
244 Letter from Wayne Flick, Esq. to Judge Jordan re estimate of time necessary for hearing. (ntl) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
245 ORDER, Motion Hearing/Oral Argument set for 10:00 on 2/6/03 for [233-1] motion for Partial Summary Judgment ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
246 ORDER, set continued Mediation Conference for 11:00 on 2/6/03. Counsel shall provide list of attendees by 1/31/03. ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 01/14/2003)

01/15/2003
01/15/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003
01/21/2003 01/22/2003 01/23/2003 01/23/2003 01/23/2003 01/27/2003 02/06/2003 02/06/2003
02/06/2003

247 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER - resetting Pretrial conference to 9:00 on 3/12/03 ; Motions in Limine shall not be filed. In Limine requests shall be set forth in the Pretrial Order and limited to 5 requests with no briefing. Final joint proposed Pretrial Order is due on 2/26/03 ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
248 Reply Brief Filed by U.S.A., in support of [233-1] motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (rwc) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
249 AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A., Re: Pltf's Reply Brief [DI# 248] was served. (rwc) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
250 Letter dated 1/16/03 by Judge Jordan to parties enclosing scheduling order form and requesting parties contact the Court w/in 10-days to schedule a teleconference. (rwc) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
251 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S.A., Re: Pltf's 1st Amended Resp. to Deft's 1st set of Interrog., was served. (rwc) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
Deadline updated per calendar ntc; set Telephone Conference for 11:00 on 1/23/03 (rwc) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
252 Letter dated 1/23/03 to Judge Jordan by David H. Williams, Esq., recommending a 7-day trial to begin 5/21/03 through 5/30/03. (rwc) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
253 Steno Notes filed by Ct Rptr K. Maurer for 1/23/03 teleconference. (rwc) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
Tele-conference held before Judge Jordan. A 7-day Bench Trial will be set for 5/21/03 at 10:00 (17hrs per side), Order to issue. (Ct Rptr K. Maurer). (rwc) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
254 Letter dated 1/27/03 by Judge Jordan to parties, Re: change of bench trial date and proposed dates. (rwc) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
255 Steno Notes filed by Ct Rptr B. Gaffigan for oral argument held on 2/6/03. (rwc) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
256 ORDER - that the State of Delaware is to submit its resolution proposal by 2/21/03; United States is to submit their response by 3/7/03. Proposals are to be submitted directly to chambers. ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
Motion hearing held re: [233-1] motion for Partial Summary

02/10/2003
02/10/2003 02/12/2003 03/25/2003 05/20/2003
05/20/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003

Judgment Motion hearing held. Court reserved decision. Judge Jordan presiding. (Ct Rptr B. Gaffigan). (rwc) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
257 THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER - setting Pretrial conference for 9:30 on 7/7/03 ; set Bench Trial (7-days) for 10:00 on 8/13/03 ; Proposed Pretrial Order due on 6/23/03. ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
258 TRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER - (see Order for details), ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
259 TRANSCRIPT filed by Ct Rptr B. Gaffigan, Re: motion hearing held on 2/6/03. (rwc) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
260 ORDER: the continued mediation tentatively scheduled for 5/16/03 at 10:00 is canceled; ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (ntl) (Entered: 03/25/2003)
261 ORDER - granting [233-1] motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (See Memorandum Opinion [DI# 262] for discussion) ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
262 MEMORANDUM OPINION - in support of Order [261-1], (see Memorandum Opinion for details). ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
263 Proposed Final Pre-Trial Order filed by U.S.A., State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police (rwc) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
264 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits and Deposition Transcripts with Objections by Defendant. Filed by U.S.A. in support of [263-1] Pretrial Order. (rwc) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
265 Defendant's Trial Exhibits (Volume I) Objected to by Plaintiff. Filed by State of Delaware in support of [263-1] Pretrial Order. (rwc) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
266 Defendant's Trial Exhibits (Volume II) Objected to by Plaintiff. Filed by State of Delaware in support of [263-1] Pretrial Order. (rwc) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
267 Defendant's Trial Exhibits (Volume III) Objected to by Plaintiff. Filed by State of Delaware in support of [263-1] Pretrial Order. (rwc) (Entered: 06/24/2003)

07/07/2003 07/09/2003 07/09/2003 07/11/2003
07/11/2003
07/11/2003
08/06/2003 08/06/2003 08/06/2003 08/06/2003 08/06/2003 08/06/2003 08/07/2003
08/07/2003
08/07/2003 08/07/2003

Pre-trial conference held before Judge Jordan. (Ct Rptr B. Gaffigan). (rwc) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
268 Notes filed by Ct Rptr B. Gaffigan for 7/7/03 Pretrial Conference. (rwc) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
269 TRANSCRIPT filed by Ct Rptr B. Gaffigan, Re: pre-trial conference held on 7/7/03 (rwc) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
270 Letter dated 7/11/03 to Judge Jordan by Wayne S. Flick, Esq., Re: Deft's position concerning USA's in limine request numbers 1 & 3. (rwc) (Entered: 07/11/2003)
271 Letter dated 7/11/03 to Judge Jordan by Patricia C. Hannigan, Esq., Re: USA's response to the State's in limine requests. (rwc) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
272 Notice of Deficiency from the court to plaintiff U.S.A., Re: Copy of DI#271 not filed with the Clerk's office. (rwc) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
273 Subpoena for Scott M. Barnett was served on 8/5/03. (rwc) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
274 Subpoena for Colby A. Cox was served on 8/5/03. (rwc) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
275 Subpoena for Blaine M. Daisey was served on 8/5/03. (rwc) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
276 Subpoena for Keith A. Mark was served on 8/5/03. (rwc) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
277 Subpoena for Tonya A. Widdoes was served on 8/5/03. (rwc) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
278 Subpoena for John A. Yeomans was served on 8/5/03. (rwc) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
279 MOTION by U.S.A. with Proposed Order for Derrick L. Brent to Appear Pro Hac Vice re: [279-1] motion (rwc) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
So Ordered granting [279-1] motion for Derrick L. Brent to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) Notice to all parties. (rwc) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
280 Subpoena for Maurice Gibson was served on 7/29/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
281 Subpoena for Eliijah Richardson was served on 7/30/03 (rwc)

08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/11/2003
08/12/2003 08/13/2003 08/13/2003

(Entered: 08/08/2003)
282 Subpoena for Jayson Jeffers was served on 7/30/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
283 Subpoena for Michael Hertzfeld was served on 7/30/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
284 Subpoena for Correy Brown was served on 7/30/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
285 Subpoena for Anthony Easterling was served on 7/30/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
286 Subpoena for Berle Brereton was served on 7/29/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
287 Subpoena for Sean Fitzgerald was served on 7/29/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
288 Subpoena for Marvin Robbins was served on 8/1/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
289 Subpoena for Heyward White was served on 8/1/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
290 Subpoena for Tyron Mabson was served on 8/5/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
291 Subpoena for Rex Rosiji was served on 7/29/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
292 ORDER - (1) Pltf's in limine request to exclude evidence relating to studies by Dr. Jeanneret is DENIED; (2) Pltf's in limine request to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Becker is GRANTED; (3) Deft's in limine request to exclude testimony by Dr. Harold W. Goldstein is DENIED; (4) Deft's in limine request Re: "Alternative Employment Practices" is DENIED; (5) Deft's in limine request to exclude testimony by Dr. Siskin on issues of industrial psychology is DENIED. (see order for details).( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
293 Joint Trial Exhibit list filed by U.S.A., State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police (rwc) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
Bench trial held (Day #1). Judge Jordan presiding. (Ct Rptr Hawkins Reporting Service). (rwc) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
So Ordered granting [263-1] pretrial order ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) Notice to all parties. (rwc) (Entered:

08/14/2003 08/15/2003 08/18/2003 08/19/2003 08/20/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/25/2003
09/22/2003
09/22/2003 10/10/2003
10/10/2003

08/19/2003)
Bench trial held (Day #2). Judge Jordan presiding. (Ct Rptr Hawkins Reporting Service). (rwc) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
Bench trial held (Day #3). Judge Jordan presiding. (Ct Rptr Hawkins Reporting Service). (rwc) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
Bench trial held (Day # 4) before Judge Jordan. (Ct Rptr Hawkins Reporting Service). (rwc) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
Bench trial held (Day #5) before Judge Jordan. (Ct Rptr Hawkins Reporting Service). (rwc) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
Bench trial held (Day #6) before Judge Jordan. (Ct Rptr Hawkins Reporting Service). (rwc) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
294 TRANSCRIPT filed by Hawkins Reporting Service, Re: bench trial held on 8/13/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
295 TRANSCRIPT filed by Hawkins Reporting Service, Re: bench trial held on 8/14/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
296 TRANSCRIPT filed by Hawkins Reporting Service, Re: bench trial held on 8/15/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
297 TRANSCRIPT filed by Hawkins Reporting Service, Re: bench trial held on 8/18/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
298 TRANSCRIPT filed by Hawkins Reporting Service, Re: bench trial held on 8/19/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
299 TRANSCRIPT filed by Hawkins Reporting Service, Re: bench trial held on 8/20/03 (rwc) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
300 Letter dated 8/25/03 to Judge Jordan by Francisco Sersale di Cerisano, Esq., enclosing presentation slides used and not used during closing arguments. (rwc) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
301 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police (rwc) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
302 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law filed by U.S.A. (rwc) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
303 Objections filed by State of Delaware, Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police in opposition to [302-1] proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (rwc) (Entered: 10/10/2003)
304 OBJECTIONS filed by U.S.A. in opposition to [301-1]

03/22/2004
03/22/2004 03/22/2004 03/22/2004 04/29/2004
04/30/2004 06/15/2004
06/15/2004 07/15/2004
08/17/2004 08/19/2004 08/19/2004 08/23/2004
08/23/2004
08/24/2004

proposed findings of fact (rwc) (Entered: 10/14/2003)
305 POST-TRIAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
Case closed per DI#305. (rwc) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
Bench trial issues resolved per DI#305. (rwc) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
Case reopened. (rwc) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
306 ORDER, set Status Teleconference for 10:30 on 6/15/04 ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
307 JOINT STATUS REPORT dated 4/29/04 filed by USA, State of Delaware (rwc) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
308 ORDER, set Status Teleconference for 11:30 on 7/21/04 ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
Status teleconference held before Judge Jordan. (Ct Rptr V. Gunning) (rwc) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
309 ORDER, reset Status Teleconference for 12:45 on 8/17/04 ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
Status teleconference held before Judge Jordan. (Ct Rptr K. Maurer) (rwc) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
310 Steno Notes filed by Ct Rptr K. Maurer for 8/17/04 (rwc) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
311 TRANSCRIPT filed by Ct Rptr K. Maurer, Re: status teleconference for date of 8/17/04 (rwc) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
312 Letter dated 8/20/04 to Judge Jordan by Benjamin Blustein, Esq., enclosing a joint proposed scheduling order. (rwc) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
313 Notice of Deficiency from the court to Benjamin Blustein, Esq., Re: DI#312 not signed by local counsel. (rwc) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
314 SCHEDULING ORDER: setting Discovery cutoff to 4/15/05 ; Status Report is due on 12/2/04; Status Teleconference set for 4:30 on 12/9/04; Deadline for filing dispositive motions is

08/24/2004 08/25/2004 08/27/2004 09/01/2004
09/01/2004 09/09/2004 09/16/2004 09/23/2004 09/27/2004 09/28/2004 10/26/2004 12/03/2004

5/17/05; Pretrial conference set for 4:30 on 8/15/05 ; Proposed Pretrial Order due on 8/1/05; Bench Trial (3-days) set for 9:00 on 9/6/05 ; Case is referred to the U.S. Magistrate for ADR. ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
315 TRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER - (see Order for details). ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
316 ORDER - setting teleconference for 9:30 on 9/14/04 to discuss ADR options. ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl (rwc) (Entered: 08/25/2004)
317 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police, Re: Phase II discovery requests were served. (rwc) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
318 MOTION by Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police, State of Delaware with Proposed Order for Order concerning presumptive eligibility for relief Answer Brief due 9/15/04 re: [318-1] motion (ntl) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
319 Opening Brief Filed by Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police, State of Delaware [318-1] motion for Order concerning presumptive eligibility for relief (ntl) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
320 TRANSCRIPT filed by Ct Rptr K. Maurer, Re: status teleconference for date of 8/17/04 (rwc) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
321 Answer Brief Filed by USA, in opposition to [318-1] motion for Order concerning presumptive eligibility for relief - Reply Brief due 9/23/04 (rwc) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
322 Reply Brief Filed by Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police, in support of [318-1] motion for Order concerning presumptive eligibility for relief (rwc) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
323 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by USA, Re: Phase II discovery responses were served. (rwc) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
324 ORDER, set Mediation Conference for 10:00 on 10/25/04 ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
325 ORDER, set Mediation Conference for 10:30 on 11/11/04 ( signed by Judge Mary P. Thynge ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
326 Letter STATUS REPORT dated 12/1/04 by Dept of Pub Safety,

12/09/2004 12/09/2004 12/10/2004 12/10/2004 12/10/2004 12/14/2004 01/11/2005 01/11/2005 01/12/2005
08/01/2005 08/01/2005 08/02/2005 08/02/2005

DE Div State Police, USA, State of Delaware (ntl) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
Status teleconference held before Judge Jordan. (Ct Rptr B. Gaffigan). (rwc) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
327 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Out of State Counsel filed by Defts Dept of Pub Safety, DE Div State Police, State of Delaware, Re: Latham & Watkins LLP (rwc) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
328 Steno Notes for 12/9/04 filed by Ct Rptr B. Gaffigan. (rwc) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
329 TRANSCRIPT filed by Ct Rptr B. Gaffigan, Re: status conference for dates of 12/9/04 (rwc) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
330 Letter dated 12/10/04 to Judge Jordan by David H. Williams, Esq., Re: Status of discussions with client. (rwc) (Entered: 12/13/2004)
331 Letter dated 12/13/04 to Judge Jordan by David H. Williams, Esq., Re: Assurances by defense counsel. (rwc) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
Tele-conference held before Judge Jordan, Re: Status. (Ct Rptr B. Gaffigan) (rwc) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
332 Steno Notes for 1/11/05 filed by Ct Rptr B. Gaffigan. (rwc) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
333 FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER (Phase II) setting Discovery cutoff for 7/1/05 ; Deadline for filing dispositive motions is 8/1/05; Pretrial conference set for 4:30 on 1/2/06 ; Proposed Pretrial Order due on 12/12/05; Bench Trial (3-days) set for 9:00 beginning 1/23/06 ; ( signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan ) copies to: cnsl. (rwc) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kent A. Jordan : Status Teleconference held on 8/1/2005. (Court Reporter B. Gaffigan.) (rwc, ) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
334 -STENO NOTES for 8/1/05 filed by Court Reporter: B. Gaffigan. (Notes on file in Clerk's Office) (rwc, ) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
335 Joint MOTION By Plaintiff United States and Defendants State of Delaware, et al. for Entry of Consent Decree - filed by USA. (Hannigan, Patricia) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
336 MEMORANDUM in Support re 335 Joint MOTION By

08/02/2005 08/03/2005 08/03/2005 08/04/2005 08/04/2005
08/04/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005
09/21/2005 09/21/2005

Plaintiff United States and Defendants State of Delaware, et al. for Entry of Consent Decree filed by USA.Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 8/16/2005. (Hannigan, Patricia) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
337 PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENT by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A thru H)(Hannigan, Patricia) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/3/2005 (rwc, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 8/3/2005 (rwc, ). (Entered: 08/02/2005)
CORRECTING ENTRY: Exhibit A to DI# 337 was removed from public view and placed under seal as directed by the Court. (rwc, ) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
338 REDACTED VERSION Redacted Appendix A of D.I. 337 by USA. (Hannigan, Patricia) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
339 MEMORANDUM ORDER - denying [318] Motion Concerning Presumptive Eligibility for Relief. Signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan on 8/4/05. (rwc, ) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
340 CONSENT DECREE ORDER - provisionally granting 335 Motion for Entry of Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan on 8/4/05. (Attachments: Appendix A - SEALED#; Appendix B; Appendix C; Appendix D; Appendix E; Appendix F; Appendix G; Appendix H) (rwc, ) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
341 ORDER - Setting Fairness Hearing, re 340 provisionally approved Consent Decree, for 9/22/2005 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6A before Honorable Kent A. Jordan. Signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan on 8/4/05. (rwc, ) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
342 MEMORANDUM in Opposition Plaintiff United States' Memorandum in Response to Objections filed by USA.Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 9/28/2005. (Hannigan, Patricia) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
343 Letter (received 9/13/05) to Judge Jordan from Derrick L. Brent regarding attached objection letters to 340 Consent Decree (Attachments: A1 - troublefield, A2 - alimenti, A3 thompson A4 - mauchin, A5 - lochstoer, A6 - wenk, A7 - dalton)(rwc, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
344 Letter dated 9/20/05 to Judge Jordan from Derrick L. Brent regarding attached objection letter to 340 Consent Decree. (Attachments: - dalton letter)(rwc, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
345 Letter dated 9/21/05 to Judge Jordan from Patricia C. Hannigan regarding attached objection letter to 340 Consent Decree.

09/22/2005
09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/23/2005 09/23/2005 03/10/2006
03/10/2006 03/10/2006
03/13/2006 05/24/2006 05/25/2006

(Attachments: - mcgrory letter)(rwc, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
346 SAFE GUARDED-SEALED STENO NOTES of Fairness Hearing held on 9/22/05 before Judge Jordan. Court Reporter: B. Gaffigan. (Notes on file in Clerk's Office) (rwc, ) Modified on 6/8/2006 (rpg, ). Modified on 7/13/2007 (lid, ). (Entered: 09/22/2005)
SO-ORDERED - granting 340 Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan on 9/22/05. (rwc, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kent A. Jordan : Fairness Hearing held on 9/22/2005. (Court Reporter B. Gaffigan.) (rwc, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
347 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on 9/22/05 before Judge Jordan. Court Reporter: B. Gaffigan. (Transcript on file in Clerk's Office) (rwc, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
CASE CLOSED (rwc, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
348 Proposed STIPULATION to approve eligibility of Priority Hire Claimants re 340 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, by State of Delaware, State of Delaware Department of Public Safety, Delaware Division of State Police. (Williams, David) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
349 SEALED EXHIBIT re 348 Stipulation to approve eligibility of Priority Hire Claimants by State of Delaware, State of Delaware Department of Public Safety, Delaware Division of State Police. (Williams, David) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
350 Letter to The Honorable Kent A. Jordan from David H. Williams regarding filing of a Stipulation to approve the eligibility of Priority Hire Claimants - re 349 Exhibit to a Document, 348 Stipulation. (Williams, David) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
SO ORDERED, re 348 Stipulation filed by State of Delaware, State of Delaware Department of Public Safety, Delaware Division of State Police, . Signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan on 3/13/06. (rwc, ) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
351 Letter to Judge Jordan dated 5/19/06 by Derrick L. Brent, Re: Fairness Hearing & STATUS REPORT by USA. (rwc, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
352 ORDER - Granting request 351 for permission to notify Claimants that all Objections are to be sent to the United States . Signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan on 5/25/06. (rwc, ) (Entered:

06/01/2006 06/02/2006
06/06/2006 06/22/2006 07/10/2006
07/13/2006 07/19/2006 07/20/2006 07/21/2006 07/21/2006
07/21/2006 07/28/2006

05/25/2006)
353 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Charles E. Leggott and Elizabeth A. Speck - filed by USA. (Hannigan, Patricia) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
SO ORDERED, re 353 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Charles E. Leggott and Elizabeth A. Speck filed by USA. Signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan on 6/2/06. (rwc, ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
354 Letter to Honorable Kent A. Jordan from Patricia C. Hannigan regarding Notice of Preliminary Determination to Claimants. (Hannigan, Patricia) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
The following sealed document(s) will be retained permanently in the Clerk's Office for safekeeping: 346. (rpg, ) (Entered: 06/22/2006)
355 ORDER (including procedural letter and docket sheet), directing the return of sealed documents to the filing parties. Signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan on 7/10/06. (Attachments: # 1 Letter to counsel # 2 Partial Docket Sheet)(rpg, ) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
356 Joint STATUS REPORT (SEALED) by USA, State of Delaware. (Hannigan, Patricia) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kent A. Jordan : Fairness Hearing held on 7/19/2006. (Court Reporter B. Gaffigan.) (rwc, ) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
357 STENO NOTES (SEALED) for 7/19/06 filed by Court Reporter: B. Gaffigan. (Notes on file in Clerk's Office) (rwc, ) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
358 Letter to Honorable Kent A. Jordan from Patricia C. Hannigan & Elizabeth A. Speck regarding Proposed Order. (Hannigan, Patricia) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
359 ORDER - that 1) the objections filed by the Claimants are overruled; 2) the Court approves the parties' proposed Priority Hire list; and (3) the Court approves the individual relief determinations made by the parties with respect to backpay, retroactive seniority and pension benefits. Signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan on 7/21/06. (rwc, ) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
CASE CLOSED. (rwc, ) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
360 TRANSCRIPT (partial) of Fairness Hearing held on 7/19/06 before Judge Jordan. Court Reporter: B. Gaffigan. (Transcript

07/28/2006 07/28/2006 10/27/2006 10/31/2006 11/06/2006 11/06/2006 11/09/2006
02/27/2007 02/27/2007

on file in Clerk's Office) (ntl, ) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
361 SAFE GUARDED-TRANSCRIPT (partial) of Fairness Hearing held on 7/19/06 before Judge Jordan. Court Reporter: B. Gaffigan. {SEALED} (Transcript on file in Clerk's Office) (ntl, ) Modified on 7/13/2007 (lid, ). (Entered: 07/28/2006)
362 SAFE GUARDED-TRANSCRIPT (partial) of Fairness Hearing held on 7/19/06 before Judge Jordan. Court Reporter: B. Gaffigan. {SEALED} (Transcript on file in Clerk's Office) (ntl, ) Modified on 7/13/2007 (lid, ). (Entered: 07/28/2006)
363 SEALED STIPULATION by the parties reporting in writing on accepted relief re 340 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, by State of Delaware, State of Delaware Department of Public Safety, Delaware Division of State Police. (Williams, David) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
SO ORDERED, re 363 Sealed Stipulation filed by State of Delaware, State of Delaware Department of Public Safety, Delaware Division of State Police. Signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan on 10/31/06. (rwc, ) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
364 Letter to The Honorable Kent A. Jordan from David H. Williams regarding attaching Exhibit C to Defendant's Written Report on Accepted Relief - re 363 Stipulation. (Williams, David) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
365 SEALED EXHIBIT re 363 Stipulation, 364 Letter to Defendants' Written Report on Accepted Relief by State of Delaware, State of Delaware Department of Public Safety, Delaware Division of State Police. (Williams, David) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
366 REDACTED VERSION of 363 Stipulation, 365 Exhibit to a Document Defendants' Written Report on Accepted Relief by State of Delaware, State of Delaware Department of Public Safety, Delaware Division of State Police. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A, B, and C)(Williams, David) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
367 Letter to David H. Williams from Deputy Clerk dated 2/27/07 regarding return of Defendant's Trial Exhibits. (rwc) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
368 Letter to Patricia C. Hannigan from Deputy Clerk dated 2/27/07 regarding return of Government's Trial Exhibits. (rwc) (Entered: 02/27/2007)

03/01/2007 07/20/2007
07/25/2007 08/08/2007 08/13/2007

369 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT of Defendant's Trial Exhibits by State of Delaware. (rwc) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
370 ORDER (including procedural letter and docket sheet), directing the return of sealed documents to the parties. Signed by Judge Vacant Judgeship on 07/20/2007. (Attachments: # 1 atty letter# 2 docket sheet# 3 plaintiff(s) sealed docs# 4 defendant(s) sealed docs)(lid) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
The following sealed document(s) will be retained permanently in the Clerk's Office for safekeeping: 346,361,362. (lid) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
371 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT of the following sealed documents, signed on behalf of USA : D.I. # 356 (rwc) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
372 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT of Sealed Documents by Morris James LLP. (rwc) (Entered: 08/13/2007)