Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 1 of 35
APPEAL,STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12−cv−06867−WB

TAHA v. BENSALEM TOWNSHIP et al Assigned to: HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE related Case: 2:16−cv−02143−WB
Case in other court: USCA, 16−03077
USCA, 19−02761 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/07/2012 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

DARYOUSH TAHA Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

represented by ALAN E. DENENBERG ABRAMSON & DENENBERG 1315 WALNUT ST 12TH FL PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 215−546−1345 Fax: 215−546−5355 Email: adenenberg@adlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JONATHAN SHUB KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC 1600 MARKET ST SUITE 2500 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−238−1700 Fax: 215−238−1968 Email: jshub@kohnswift.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SCOTT A. GEORGE SEEGER WEISS 1515 MARKET STREET SUITE 1380 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−553−7982 Email: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com TERMINATED: 05/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

AARTHI MANOHAR KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−238−1700 Fax: 215−238−1968 Email: amanohar@kohnswift.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH C. KOHN KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC ONE S. BROAD ST STE 2100 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 215−238−1700 Fax: 215−238−1968 Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 2 of 35
KEVIN LAUKAITIS KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC 1600 MARKET STREET SUITE 2500 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−238−1700 Email: klaukaitis@kohnswift.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICK C. CULLEN KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC 1600 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2500 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−238−1700 Email: pcullen@kohnswift.com TERMINATED: 10/03/2018
ROBERT J. LAROCCA KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 MARKET STREET SUITE 2500 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−238−1700 Email: rlarocca@kohnswift.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THEODORE M. SCHAER ZARWIN BAUM DEVITO KAPLAN SCHAER & TODDY, P.C. 1818 MARKET ST 13TH FL PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−569−2800 Email: tmschaer@zarwin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant BENSALEM TOWNSHIP TERMINATED: 07/19/2013
Defendant STEVEN MORAN DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY TERMINATED: 07/19/2013 Defendant LT. CHRISTOPHER M. BARRY, SR. BADGE #71 TERMINATED: 07/19/2013
Defendant CHING−O−CHANG, LLC D/B/A MUGSHOTS.COM (FICTITIOUS NAME)

represented by KATHRYN A. DUX GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH THE BELLEVUE, STE 500 200 S. BROAD ST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−545−7700 Fax: 215−732−4182 Email: duxk@ggmfirm.com TERMINATED: 07/19/2013
represented by KATHRYN A. DUX (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2013
represented by KATHRYN A. DUX (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 3 of 35

TERMINATED: 02/26/2013

Defendant
FRANK NOONAN PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE COMMISSIONER TERMINATED: 07/19/2013

represented by BARRY N. KRAMER PA OFFICE OF ATTY GENERAL 1600 Arch Street THIRD FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−560−1581 Fax: 717−772−4526 Email: bkramer@attorneygeneral.gov TERMINATED: 07/19/2013

Defendant BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

represented by FRANK A. CHERNAK MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP 1735 Market Street, 21st Floor PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−772−7363 Fax: 215−731−3688 Email: fchernak@mmwr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

BRETT M. WALDRON MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP 1735 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−772−7536 Fax: 215−731−3691 Email: bwaldron@mmwr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

BURT M. RUBLIN BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP 1735 MARKET ST. 51ST FL. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103−7599 215−864−8116 Fax: 215−864−9783 Email: rublin@ballardspahr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ERIN K. CLARKE Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP 1735 Market Street, 21st Floor PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−772−7284 Fax: 215−772−7620 Email: eclarke@mmwr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICER TERMINATED: 07/19/2013

Defendant

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 4 of 35

WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER BUCKS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR TERMINATED: 07/19/2013

represented by FRANK A. CHERNAK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ERIN K. CLARKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
TERRANCE P. MOORE BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN TERMINATED: 07/19/2013

represented by FRANK A. CHERNAK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

ERIN K. CLARKE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2013

Defendant
BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY RECORDS/RECORDS CUSTODIAN EMPLOYEES JANE AND/OR JOHN DOE #1−6 TERMINATED: 07/19/2013

Defendant
MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC C/O HARVARD BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. TERMINATED: 03/26/2014

Defendant
BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

represented by FRANK A. CHERNAK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

BRETT M. WALDRON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

BURT M. RUBLIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ERIN K. CLARKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MUGSHOTONLINE.COM TERMINATED: 03/26/2014

represented by JOSEPH F. CENTRICH CLAUSEN & CENTRICH 2002 TIMBERLOCH PL SUITE 200 THE WOODLANDS, TX 77380 281−210−0140 Email: jcentrich@cpctexaslaw.com TERMINATED: 03/26/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

LANCE WINCHESTER CLAUSEN & CENTRICH

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 5 of 35

2002 TIMBERLOCH PL SUITE 200 THE WOODLANDS, TX 77380 281−210−0140 Email: lance@lancewlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/26/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

JAY BARRY HARRIS FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS TEN PENN CENTER SUITE 1100 1801 MARKET ST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−893−9300 Fax: 215−893−8719 Email: jharris@finemanlawfirm.com TERMINATED: 03/26/2014

Defendant
BUSTED MUGSHOTS.COM TERMINATED: 03/26/2014

represented by JOSEPH F. CENTRICH (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

LANCE WINCHESTER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

JAY BARRY HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2014

Defendant
CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC d/b/a Mugshotsoline.com and Bustedmugshots.com TERMINATED: 12/30/2015

represented by JAY BARRY HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY
JOSEPH F. CENTRICH (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

LANCE WINCHESTER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
UNPUBLISH LLC d/b/a Mugshots.com TERMINATED: 06/22/2016

V.
Movant
JOHN PASSMORE TERMINATED: 09/17/2019

represented by JOHN PASSMORE FJ−4109 SCI SOMERSET 1600 WALTERS MILL ROAD SOMERSET, PA 15510 PRO SE

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 6 of 35

Cross Defendant UNPUBLISH LLC
Cross Claimant BENSALEM TOWNSHIP

represented by KATHRYN A. DUX (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY RECORDS/RECORDS CUSTODIAN EMPLOYEES JANE AND/OR JOHN DOE #1−6
Cross Defendant BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
Cross Defendant TERRANCE P. MOORE BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN
Cross Defendant MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC C/O HARVARD BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. TERMINATED: 03/26/2014
Cross Defendant FRANK NOONAN PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE COMMISSIONER
Cross Defendant WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER BUCKS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR

represented by ERIN K. CLARKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ERIN K. CLARKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BARRY N. KRAMER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ERIN K. CLARKE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/07/2012
12/07/2012 12/07/2012 01/28/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against CHRISTOPHER M. BARRY, SR, BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, CHING−O−CHANG, LLC, STEVEN MORAN ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 073538.), filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(rt) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/7/2012: # 2 Exhibit) (rt, ). (Entered: 12/07/2012)
Summons Issued as to CHRISTOPHER M. BARRY, SR, BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, CHING−O−CHANG, LLC, STEVEN MORAN. Four Forwarded To: Counsel on December 7, 2012 (rt) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by DARYOUSH TAHA. (rt) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by DARYOUSH TAHA. BENSALEM TOWNSHIP waiver sent on 12/7/2012, answer due 2/5/2013. (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 01/28/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 7 of 35

02/05/2013 02/05/2013 02/26/2013
02/26/2013 02/28/2013 03/18/2013 04/01/2013 04/11/2013 04/11/2013 04/17/2013 04/25/2013 05/06/2013 05/15/2013
05/16/2013

3 NOTICE of Appearance by KATHRYN A. DUX on behalf of BENSALEM TOWNSHIP with Certificate of Service(DUX, KATHRYN) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
4 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM As To Count IV of Plaintiff's Complaint filed by BENSALEM TOWNSHIP.Brief, Certificate of Service, Exhibit 1.(DUX, KATHRYN) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against CHRISTOPHER M. BARRY, SR, BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY RECORDS/RECORDS CUSTODIAN EMPLOYEES JANE AND/OR JOHN DOE #1−6, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, JOHN DOE, TERRANCE P. MOORE, STEVEN MORAN, MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC, FRANK NOONAN, WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER, filed by DARYOUSH TAHA, JURY DEMAND.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
AMENDED Summons Issued as to CHRISTOPHER M. BARRY, SR, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, STEVEN MORAN, MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC, FRANK NOONAN, WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER. Forwarded To: ALAN DENENBERG on 2/27/13 (jl, ) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
6 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT BENSALEM TOWNSHIP'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT IV OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 2/28/13.2/28/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by BENSALEM TOWNSHIP.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Brief, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(DUX, KATHRYN) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
8 RESPONSE in Opposition re 7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Plaintiff's Amended Complaint certificate of service and memorandum of law filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
9 RESPONSE in Support re 7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by BENSALEM TOWNSHIP. (DUX, KATHRYN) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
10 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by STEVEN MORAN.Brief, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(DUX, KATHRYN) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
11 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT BENSALME TOWNSHIP'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 4/15/13.4/17/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
12 RESPONSE in Opposition re 10 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Plaintiff's Amended Complaint certificate of service and memorandum of law filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
13 STIPUATION AND ORDER THAT BENSALEM TOWNSHIP TIME TO ANSWER THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS EXTENDED UNTIL 5/15/13; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 5/6/13. 5/6/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
14 ANSWER to 5 Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, CROSSCLAIM against BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY RECORDS/RECORDS CUSTODIAN EMPLOYEES JANE AND/OR JOHN DOE #1−6, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC, FRANK NOONAN, WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER by BENSALEM TOWNSHIP. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(DUX, KATHRYN) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
15 ORDER THAT A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD ON 5/29/13 AT 10:00 A.M. IN ROOM 9614; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 5/16/13. 5/16/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 8 of 35

05/21/2013 05/23/2013 05/23/2013 05/28/2013
06/04/2013 06/04/2013 06/07/2013 06/10/2013 06/11/2013 06/12/2013
06/13/2013
06/13/2013 06/13/2013 06/14/2013 06/17/2013 06/18/2013

16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by BENSALEM TOWNSHIP (Supplemental) (DUX, KATHRYN) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by FRANK A. CHERNAK on behalf of BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER with Certificate of Service(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by ERIN K. CLARKE on behalf of BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER with Certificate of Service(CLARKE, ERIN) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
19 ORDER THAT THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 5/29/13 IS RESCHEDULED TO 6/18/13 AT 9:15 A.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 5/28/13. 5/28/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
20 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Scott Segal re: served Amended Complaint upon Bucks County Pennsylvania, William F. Plaintier, Terrance P. Moore by Personal on 5/23/2013 (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
21 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Alan Denenberg re: served Amended Complaint upon Mugshots.Com, LLC by Certified Mail on 5/28/2013 (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by BARRY N. KRAMER on behalf of FRANK NOONAN, FRANK NOONAN with Cert of Service(KRAMER, BARRY) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
Copy of Order dated 5/28/13 and envelope returned from the U.S. Postal Service addressed to MUGSHOTS.COM for the following reason: UNALBLE TO FORWARDED. (jl, ) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
23 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Richard Kreitzen re: served Amended Complaint upon Commissioner Frank Noonan by Personal on 5−24−2013 (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
24 Report Of Rule 26(f) Meeting by BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, STEVEN MORAN, FRANK NOONAN, WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER, DARYOUSH TAHA. (CLARKE, ERIN) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
25 Report Of Rule 26(f) Meeting by BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, STEVEN MORAN, FRANK NOONAN, WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER, DARYOUSH TAHA. (CLARKE, ERIN) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
26 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER.Brief, Certificate of Service.(CLARKE, ERIN) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
27 ANSWER to 14 Answer to Amended Complaint, Crossclaim,, Crossclaim by BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER.(CLARKE, ERIN) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
28 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by FRANK NOONAN.Memorandum, Cert of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex A)(KRAMER, BARRY) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
29 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Alan Denenberg re: served Amended Complaint upon Deputy Christopher Berry, Sr. by Personal on 6/11/2013 (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
30 ORDER THAT ALL FACT AND EXPERT DISCOVERY RELATING TO CLASS CERTIFICATION SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 10/4/13. PLAINTIFFS SHALL FILE THEIR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION NO LATER THAN 10/25/13. ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION SHALL BE HEARD ON 12/18/13 AT 10:00 A.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 6/18/13. 6/18/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 06/18/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 9 of 35

06/27/2013 07/03/2013 07/19/2013 07/30/2013 07/30/2013 07/30/2013 07/30/2013 08/06/2013 08/08/2013 08/13/2013 08/21/2013 08/22/2013 08/30/2013

31 RESPONSE in Opposition re 26 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Memorandum and Certificate of Service filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
32 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE TIME WITHIN WHICH DEFENDANT BARRY HAS TO ANSWER, PLEAD OR OTHERWISE MOVE IS EXTENDED TO 7/23/13; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 7/3/13. 7/3/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
33 Second Amended Complaint against BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC, MUGSHOTSONLINE.COM and BUSTED MUGSHOTS.COM filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (mbh, ) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
Summons Issued as to BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUSTED MUGSHOTS.COM, MUGSHOTONLINE.COM, MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC. Forwarded To: Alan E. Denenberg, Esquire on 7/30/13 (per chambers) (mbh, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
34 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT STEVEN MORAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED AS MOOT; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 7/30/13. 7/30/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
35 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS AGAINST THEM IN THE AMEND COMPLAINT IS DENIED AS MOOT; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 7/30/13. 7/30/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
36 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT NOONAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND BENSALEM TOWNSHIP'S CROSS CLAIM IS DENIED AS MOOT; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE ON 7/30/13. 7/30/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
37 ORDER THAT THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM THE CALENDER OF THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY SAVAGE TO THE CALENDER OF THE HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO; ETC.. SIGNED BY MICHAEL E. KUNZ ON 8/6/13. 8/7/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND MAILED TO UNREPS.(jl, ) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
38 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
39 ORDER THAT LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES SHALL ATTEND THE CONFERENCE AND BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 8/12/13. 8/13/13 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
40 ORDER THAT A STATUS CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 10/3/13 AT 9:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 3I; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 8/21/13. 8/21/13 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
41 RESPONSE in Opposition re 38 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction memorandum and certificate of service filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 08/22/2013)
42 MOTION for Leave to File a Brief in Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Certificate of Service.(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 08/30/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 10 of 35

09/03/2013
09/12/2013 09/18/2013 10/04/2013
10/22/2013 10/25/2013 11/06/2013
11/06/2013 11/07/2013 11/26/2013 11/26/2013 11/27/2013 12/02/2013

43 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF BUCKS AND THE BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 9/2/13. 9/3/13 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
44 REPLY to Response to Motion re 38 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
45 ORDER THAT THE TIME OF THE STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 10/3/13 HAS BEEN CHANGED TO 12:00 P.M.; ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 9/18/13. 9/18/13 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
46 ORDER THAT COUNSEL IN THIS CASE ARE ATTACHED TO APPEAR ON 10/22/13 AT 1:00 P.M. FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS. THE SCHEDULING ORDER IN THIS CASE IS SUSPENDED PENDING DISPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 10/3/13. 10/4/13 ENTERED AND E−MAILED, MAILED TO UNREPS.(jl, ) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
47 SUMMONS Returned Executed by DARYOUSH TAHA re: CT Corporation Systems served Summons and Complaint upon BUSTED MUGSHOTS.COM, MUGSHOTONLINE.COM by Certified Mail. BUSTED MUGSHOTS.COM served on 10/15/2013, answer due 11/5/2013; MUGSHOTONLINE.COM served on 10/15/2013, answer due 11/5/2013. (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
48 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO: Motion Hearing held on 10/22/13 re 38 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (jl, ) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
49 TRANSCRIPT of held on 10/22/13, before Judge RESTREPO. Court Reporter/Transcriber NELSON MALAVE. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 11/27/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/9/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/4/2014. HEARING(jl, ) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
50 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript with Certificate of Service re 49 Transcript − PDF, 11/6/13 Entered and Copies Emailed. (jl, ) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
51 NOTICE of Appearance by JAY BARRY HARRIS on behalf of BUSTED MUGSHOTS.COM, MUGSHOTONLINE.COM (HARRIS, JAY) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
52 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice of Joseph Centrich filed by BUSTED MUGSHOTS.COM, MUGSHOTONLINE.COM.Certificate of Service.(HARRIS, JAY) Modified on 12/3/2013 (jl, ).(FEE PAID PPEO92424) Modified on 12/3/2013 (jl, ). (ppEO92424 fee paid) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
53 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice of Lance Winchester filed by BUSTED MUGSHOTS.COM, MUGSHOTONLINE.COM.Certificate of Service.(HARRIS, JAY) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
54 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by BUSTED MUGSHOTS.COM, MUGSHOTONLINE.COM.Brief and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Brief, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Certificate of Service)(HARRIS, JAY) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
55 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT, WITH COURT APPROVAL, CITIZENS INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC BE ALLOWED AN EXTENSION OF TIME OF TWENTY−FIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF COURT APPROVAL OF THIS

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 11 of 35

12/05/2013 12/05/2013 12/11/2013
12/24/2013 02/05/2014
02/07/2014
02/18/2014 02/19/2014 02/20/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 03/13/2014 03/14/2014

STIPULATION TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 12/2/13. 12/2/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS AND E−MAILED.(ti, ) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
56 ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION OF LANCE WINCHESTER TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 12/4/13. 12/5/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED, MAILED TO UNREPS.(jl, ) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
57 ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION OF JOSEPH CENTRICH TO PRACTICE IN THIS COURT PRO HAC VICE IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 12/4/13. 12/5/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED, MAILED TO UNREPS.(jl, ) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
58 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS SHALL BE DUE ON 12/24/13; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 12/11/13. 12/11/13 ENTERED AND E−MAILED, MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
59 RESPONSE in Opposition re 54 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Memorandum of Law and Certificate of Service filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
60 ORDER THAT ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE CITIZENS INFORMATION ASSOCIATES LLC DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS WILL BE HELD ON 2/14/14 AT 11:00 IN COURTROOM 8B; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 2/5/14. 2/5/14 ENTERED AND E−MAILED, MAILED TO UNREPS.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
61 ORDER THAT ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE CITIZENS INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS WILL BE HELD ON 2/19/14 AT 3:30 P.M. IN COURTROOM 8B; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 2/7/14. 2/7/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
62 REPLY to Response to Motion re 54 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by BUSTED MUGSHOTS.COM, MUGSHOTONLINE.COM. (CENTRICH, JOSEPH) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
Copy of Order dated 2/7/14 and envelope returned from the U.S. Postal Service addressed to MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC for the following reason: REFUSED. (jl, ) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
63 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO: Motion Hearing on 2/19/14. (jl, ) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
64 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT BUCKS COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 2/21/14. 2/24/14 ENTERED AND E−MAILED, MAILED TO UNREP.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
65 ORDER THAT BUCKS COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 2/21/14. 2/24/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
66 ANSWER to 33 Second Amended Complaint by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, Affirmative Defenses, Certificate of Service.(CHERNAK, FRANK) Modified on 3/14/2014 (md). (Entered: 03/13/2014)
67 ORDER THAT IF PLAINTIFF WISHES TO PROCEED AGAINST CITIZENS INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC, HE SHALL FILE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND CASE CAPTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF PROCEDURE 15 (a) (2) BY 3/24/14; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 3/13/14. 3/14/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 03/14/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 12 of 35

03/18/2014 03/26/2014
03/26/2014
03/26/2014
04/08/2014 04/09/2014 04/28/2014 04/30/2014 04/30/2014 05/01/2014 05/01/2014 05/01/2014 05/14/2014 05/14/2014
05/15/2014 05/15/2014

68 MOTION to Amend/Correct 33 Amended Complaint filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Memorandum and Certificate of Service.(DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
69 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND THE CAPTION AND COMPLAINT IS GRANTED AND THE CAPTION IS AMENDED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 3/25/14. 3/26/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
70 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS CITIZEN INFORMATION SERVICES MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 3/25/14. 3/26/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
71 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES (CIA)'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 3/25/14. 3/26/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
Copy of Order dated and envelope returned from the U.S. Postal Service addressed to MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC for the following reason: REFUSED. (jl, ) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
72 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC, UNPUBLISH LLC, filed by DARYOUSH TAHA, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
73 ANSWER to 72 Amended Complaint by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, Affirmative Defenses, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) Modified on 4/29/2014 (md). (Entered: 04/28/2014)
74 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Alan Denenberg re: served Third Amended Complaint upon Northwest Registered Agent, LLC for Unpublish LLC d/b/a Mugshots.com by Certified Mail on April 14, 2014 (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
75 LETTER REQUEST for Status Conference by DARYOUSH TAHA. (DENENBERG, ALAN) Modified on 5/1/2014 (md). (Entered: 04/30/2014)
76 ANSWER to 72 Amended Complaint by CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC, Affirmative Defenses, Certificate of Service.(HARRIS, JAY) Modified on 5/2/2014 (md). (Entered: 05/01/2014)
77 ORDER THAT A STATUS CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 5/14/14 AT 10:30 A.M. IN COURTROOM 8B; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 5/1/14. 5/2/14 ENTERED AND E−MAILED, MAILED TO UNREP.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
78 Letter from JOSEPH CENTRICH TO JUDGE RESTREPO RE: CERTAIN STATEMENTS. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: DISCOVERY DUE BY 8/14/2014. MOTIONS DUE BY 9/15/2014. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
79 SCHEDULING ORDER THAT DISCOVERY SHALL CLOSE ON 8/14/14. PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE HIS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION BY 9/15/14; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 3/15/14. 5/14/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
80 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO: Status Conference held on 5/14/14. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
81 SCHEDULING ORDER THAT DISCOVERY SHALL CLOSE ON 8/14/14. PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE HIS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION BY

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 13 of 35

05/28/2014 06/02/2014 06/03/2014 06/10/2014
06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/12/2014 06/12/2014 06/12/2014 06/13/2014 06/18/2014 06/18/2014
07/03/2014 08/14/2014

9/15/14; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 3/15/14. 5/15/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
82 MOTION to Compel filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(GEORGE, SCOTT) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
83 RESPONSE to Motion re 82 MOTION to Compel filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
84 NOTICE of Appearance by BURT M. RUBLIN on behalf of BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA with Certificate of Service(RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
85 MOTION for Leave to File PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF BUCKS AND BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SETS OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(GEORGE, SCOTT) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
86 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HTE MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 6/11/14. 6/11/14 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
87 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF BUCKS AND BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SETS OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES (jl, ) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
88 RESPONSE in Support re 82 MOTION to Compel filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(GEORGE, SCOTT) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
89 RESPONSE in Opposition re 82 MOTION to Compel Supplement to Response filed June 2, 2014, filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 82 MOTION to Compel . MOTION HEARING SET FOR 6/18/2014 09:30 AM BEFORE HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO. (jl, ) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
90 ORDER THAT THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE IS 8/14/14. A HEARING ON THE PENDING MOTION TO COMPEL SHALL BE HELD ON 6/18/14 AT 9:30 A.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 6/12/14. 6/12/14 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
91 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO: Telephone Conference held on 6/12/14 (jl, ) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
92 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO: Motion Hearing held on 6/18/14 re 82 MOTION to Compel filed by DARYOUSH TAHA (jl, ) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
93 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE COURT ON THE STATUS OF DISCOVERY, AND SHALL INCLUDE ANY STIPULATION THAT DEFENDANT BUCKS COUNTY AND BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE REGARDING THE WEBSITE INFORMATION SOUGHT, BY 6/30/14; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 6/18/14. 6/18/14 ENTERED AND E−MAILED, MAILED TO UNREP.(jl, ) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
94 Letter from FRANK CHERNAK TO JUDGE RESTREPO RE: CERTAIN STATEMENTS. (jl, ) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
95 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DISCOVERY IS DUE BY 9/26/2014, AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION IS DUE BY 10/28/2014.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 8/14/2014. 8/15/2014

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 14 of 35

09/03/2014
09/08/2014 09/17/2014 09/26/2014 10/28/2014
11/05/2014 11/14/2014 11/25/2014 11/25/2014
11/25/2014 11/25/2014 11/25/2014
11/26/2014

ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(kp, ) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
96 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC.Brief and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Brief, # 3 Certificate of Service, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit A−1, # 6 Exhibit A−2, # 7 Exhibit B, # 8 Exhibit C, # 9 Exhibit D, # 10 Exhibit E)(HARRIS, JAY) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
97 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 including Star Nine Ventures, Inc. by CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC.(HARRIS, JAY) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
98 RESPONSE in Opposition re 96 MOTION for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Law and Certificate of Service filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
99 REPLY BRIEF re 96 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC. (HARRIS, JAY) Modified on 9/29/2014 (fb). (Entered: 09/26/2014)
100 MOTION to Certify Class filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Brief, Declaration, Certificate of Service. RESPONSES DUE BY 11/25/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Certificate of Service)(GEORGE, SCOTT) Modified on 12/5/2014 (jl, ). (Entered: 10/28/2014)
101 RESPONSE in Opposition re 100 MOTION to Certify Class filed by CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC. (HARRIS, JAY) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
102 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL IS DENIED AS MOOT; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 11/14/14. 11/14/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
103 MOTION for Leave to File Brief in Excess of Page Limits filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Certificate of Service.(RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
104 RESPONSE in Opposition re 100 MOTION to Certify Class filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A−1, # 2 Exhibit Ex. A−2, # 3 Exhibit Ex. B, # 4 Exhibit Ex. C, # 5 Exhibit Exs. D − F, # 6 Exhibit Exs. G − J, # 7 Exhibit Exs. K − N)(RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
105 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − C)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
106 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
107 Joint Appendix re 105 MOTION for Summary Judgment by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1−330, # 2 Appendix 331−380, # 3 Appendix 381−430, # 4 Appendix 431−480, # 5 Appendix 481−530, # 6 Appendix 531−580, # 7 Appendix 581−677, # 8 Appendix 678−824, # 9 Appendix 825−926, # 10 Appendix 927−1026, # 11 Appendix 1027−1101, # 12 Appendix 1102−1190, # 13 Appendix 1191−1241, # 14 Appendix 1242−1245)(CHERNAK, FRANK) Modified on 11/26/2014 (fb). (Entered: 11/25/2014)
108 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANTS THE COUNTY OF BUCKS AND BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 11/26/14.11/26/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 11/26/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 15 of 35

12/05/2014 12/05/2014
12/05/2014
12/18/2014 12/18/2014 12/18/2014 12/18/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/29/2014 12/29/2014 02/11/2015 02/17/2015 02/18/2015 02/18/2015

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 100 MOTION to Certify Class , 105 MOTION for Summary Judgment . RESPONSES DUE BY 12/18/2014. REPLIES DUE BY 12/18/2014. (jl, ) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
109 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT BOTH PLAINTIFF'S REPLY AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS BUCKS COUNTY/BCCF SHALL BE DUE ON 12/18/14; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 12/4/14. 12/5/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
110 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF SHALL BE GIVEN AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO DEFENDANTS BUCKS COUNTY/BCCF'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS BUCKS COUNTY'S BCCF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE DUE NO LATER THAN 12/18/14; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 12/4/14. 12/5/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
111 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(GEORGE, SCOTT) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
112 RESPONSE in Support re 100 MOTION to Certify Class filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(GEORGE, SCOTT) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
113 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Motion to File Extra Pages.(DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
114 RESPONSE in Opposition re 105 MOTION for Summary Judgment Memorandum and Certificate of Service filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Material Facts in Dispute, # 2 Supplement Resp. Facts Not in Dispute)(DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
115 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFF DARYOUSH TAHA FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 12/18/14. 12/19/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
116 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFF DARYOUSH TAHA FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 12/18/14. 12/19/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
117 REPLY to Response to Motion re 105 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
118 Response re 114 Response in Opposition to Motion, to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts in Dispute by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
119 ORDER THAT A STATUS CONFERENCE IN THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD ON 2/13/15 AT 4:00 P.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 2/10/15. 2/10/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
120 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO Status Conference held on 2/13/15. (jl, ) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 105 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 96 MOTION for Summary Judgment . MOTION HEARING SET FOR 4/20/2015 11:00 AM BEFORE HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO. (jl, ) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
121 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF SHALL SUBMIT CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON OR BEFORE 3/27/15. ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD ON THE PARTIES MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 4/20/15 AT 11:00 A.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 2/17/15.

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 16 of 35

02/18/2015 02/20/2015
03/27/2015 03/27/2015 03/27/2015 04/01/2015
04/13/2015 04/13/2015 04/13/2015 04/16/2015
04/16/2015 04/24/2015 04/24/2015 04/27/2015

2/18/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE BY 3/27/2015. (jl, ) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
122 Letter to the Honorable L. Felipe Restrepo re Legislative History by BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Legislative History−JA001246 to 1298, # 2 Appendix Legislative History−JA001299 to 1334, # 3 Appendix Legislative History−JA001335 to 1375, # 4 Appendix Legislative History−JA001376 to 1419, # 5 Appendix Legislative History−JA001420 to 1468)(CHERNAK, FRANK) Modified on 2/23/2015 (lisad, ). (Entered: 02/20/2015)
123 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Memorandum of Law and Certificate of Service.(DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
124 Supplemental Briefing on the Nature of a Damages Award Under the CHRIA re 105 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(GEORGE, SCOTT) Modified on 3/30/2015 (fb). (Entered: 03/27/2015)
125 Memorandum of Law re 105 MOTION for Summary Judgment in accordance with this Court's February 17, 2015 Order filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
126 ORDER THAT PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE ORDER DATED 2/17/15 IS VACATED. ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE PARTIES PENDING CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILL NOW BE HELD ON 4/24/15 AT 11:00 A.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 4/1/15. 4/1/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
127 Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support re 123 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) Modified on 4/14/2015 (fb). (Entered: 04/13/2015)
128 RESPONSE in Opposition re 123 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 04/13/2015)
129 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Briefing on the Nature of Damages Under the CHRIA [No. 124] filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief, Certificate of Service.(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 04/13/2015)
130 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANTS THE COUNTY OF BUCKS AND THE BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF DARYOUSH TAHA'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON THE NATURE OF A DAMAGES AWARD UNDER THE CHRIA IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 4/16/15. 4/16/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
131 BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS THE COUNTY OF BUCKS AND THE BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF DARYOUSH TAHA'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON THE NATURE OF A DAMAGES AWARD UNDER CHRIA. (jl, ) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
132 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO Motion Hearing held on 4/24/15 (jl, ) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
133 REPLY to Response to Motion re 105 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Oral Argument Question filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
134 REPLY to Response to Motion re 123 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment regarding issues raised at oral argument filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 04/27/2015)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 17 of 35

04/28/2015 05/01/2015 05/20/2015
05/20/2015 12/30/2015 12/30/2015
01/19/2016 01/29/2016
01/29/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/23/2016
02/23/2016

135 NOTICE of Change of Address by JONATHAN SHUB(SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
136 REPLY to Response to Motion re 105 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Response to Plaintiff's Letter [No. 134] filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
137 TRANSCRIPT of held on 4/24/15, before Judge RESTREPO. Court Reporter/Transcriber ESR TRANSCRIBERS LIMITED MOTION HEARING. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 6/10/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/22/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/18/2015. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/20/2015)
138 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript with Certificate of Service re 137 Transcript − PDF, 5/20/15 Entered and Copies Emailed. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/20/2015)
139 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 12/30/15. 12/30/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
140 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AND CIA IS DISMISSED AS A DEFENDANT TO THIS ACTION; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 12/30/15. 12/30/15 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
141 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO TO HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE FOR ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. SIGNED BY MICHAEL E. KUNZ, CLERK OF COURT ON 1/19/16. 1/20/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 100 MOTION to Certify Class , 105 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 123 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment .( MOTION HEARING SET FOR 2/26/2016 02:00 PM BEFORE HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE.), Set/Reset Hearings:( STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 2/26/2016 02:00 PM BEFORE HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE.) (jl, ) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
142 ORDER THAT A STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORAL ARGUMENT ON ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS SHALL TAKE PLACED ON 2/26/16 AT 2:00 P.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 1/29/16. 1/29/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
143 ORDER THAT A STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION SHALL TAKE PLACE ON 2/29/16 AT 2:00 P.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 2/18/16. 2/19/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 100 MOTION to Certify Class , 105 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 123 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . MOTION HEARING SET FOR 2/29/2016 02:00 PM BEFORE HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE. (jl, ) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
Set/Reset Hearings: STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 2/29/2016 02:00 PM BEFORE HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE. (jl, ) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 100 MOTION to Certify Class .( MOTION HEARING SET FOR 3/22/2016 04:30 PM BEFORE HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE.), Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines:( STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 3/22/2016 04:30 PM BEFORE HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE.) (jl, ) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
144 ORDER THAT THE STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE MOTIONS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION IS RESCHEDULED TO TAKE PLACE ON 3/22/16 AT 4:30 P.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 18 of 35

03/17/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016
04/08/2016 04/11/2016 04/12/2016 04/12/2016 04/15/2016 04/15/2016 04/15/2016 04/25/2016
04/25/2016 04/25/2016

BEETLESTONE ON 2/22/16. 2/23/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
145 ORDER THAT THE STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION SCHEDULED FOR 3/22/16 AT 4:30 P.M. IS CANCELLED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 3/17/16. 3/17/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
146 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 3/28/16. 3/28/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED, MAILED TO UNREP.(jl, ) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
147 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 3/28/16. 3/28/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED, MAILED TO UNREP.(jl, ) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
148 ORDER THAT ORAL ARGUMENT ON MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION IS SCHEDULED FOR 4/22/16 AT 10:00 A.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 4/7/16. 4/8/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
149 MOTION for Reconsideration re 146 Memorandum and/or Opinion, 147 Order (Memorandum and/or Opinion) filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief and Certificate of Service.(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
150 ORDER THAT ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION IS RESCHEDULED FOR 4/15/16 AT 2:30 P.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 4/12/16. 4/12/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
151 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 4/12/16. 4/12/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
152 Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief in Support of Class Certification re 100 MOTION to Certify Class filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (DENENBERG, ALAN) Modified on 4/18/2016 (fb). (Entered: 04/15/2016)
153 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE Motion Hearing held on 4/15/16 re 100 MOTION to Certify Class filed by DARYOUSH TAHA Court Reporter: ESR. (jl, ) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
154 RESPONSE in Opposition re 100 MOTION to Certify Class in Accordance with this Court's April 8, 2016 Order filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CLARKE, ERIN) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
155 TRANSCRIPT of held on 4/15/16, before Judge BEETLESTONE. Court Reporter/Transcriber ESR. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 5/16/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/26/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/25/2016. MOTION HEARING. (TRANSCRIBER'S LIMITED)(jl, ) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
156 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript with Certificate of Service re 155 Transcript − PDF, 4/25/16 Entered and Copies Emailed. (jl, ) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
Copy of Order dated 4/8/16 and envelope returned from the U.S. Postal Service addressed to UNPUBLISH LLC for the following reason: UNABLE TO FORWARD. (jl, ) (Entered: 04/25/2016)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 19 of 35

05/04/2016 05/04/2016
05/05/2016 05/06/2016
05/10/2016 05/12/2016 05/19/2016 05/20/2016 05/20/2016
05/20/2016
05/24/2016 05/25/2016 06/03/2016 06/03/2016

157 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION IS GRANTED. DARYOUSH TAHA IS APPOINTED CLASS REPRESENTATIVE; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/4/16. 5/4/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
158 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION IS GRANTED. DARYOUSH TAHA IS APPOINTED CLASS REPRESENTATIVE. SEEGER WEISS LLP AND ABRAMSON & DENEBERG P.C. ARE APPOINTED CLASS COUNSEL; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/4/16. 5/4/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
159 MOTION to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A and B)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
160 ORDER THAT THIS CIVIL ACTION SHALL BE MARKED STAYED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE COURT DECIDES DEFENDANTS BUCKS COUNTY AND BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY'S MOTION TO CERTIFY FOR AN ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/6/16. 5/6/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
161 MOTION to Substitute Class Counsel filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Declaration and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jonathan Shub in Support of Motion to Substitute Class Counsel, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Class Counsel)(SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
162 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE Telephone Conference held on 5/6/16 (jl, ) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
163 RESPONSE in Opposition re 159 MOTION to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal Memorandum of Law and Certificate of Service filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
164 Praecipe to Supplement Response to Motion with Attached Order Certificate of Service by DARYOUSH TAHA. (DENENBERG, ALAN) Modified on 5/23/2016 (fb). (Entered: 05/20/2016)
165 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE CLASS COUNSEL IS GRANTED. JONATHAN SHUB WILL SERVE AS CLASS COUNSEL IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION. SCOTT A. GEORGE OF SEAGER WEISS LLP WILL WITHDRAW FOR PLAINTIFF; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/20/16. 5/20/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED, MAILED TO UNREP.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
166 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF THE COUNTY OF BUCKS AND THE BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.&1292 (b) IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/20/16. 5/20/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
167 MOTION to Stay filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
168 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by SCOTT A. GEORGE on behalf of DARYOUSH TAHA(GEORGE, SCOTT) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
169 Request for Default Judgment against Mugshots.com, LLC and Unpublish LLC d/b/a Mugshots.Com, LLC DARYOUSH TAHA against MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC. (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
170 RESPONSE in Opposition re 167 MOTION to Stay filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 06/03/2016)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 20 of 35

06/06/2016 06/06/2016
06/06/2016 06/06/2016 06/07/2016 06/08/2016 06/08/2016
06/22/2016 06/22/2016
07/05/2016
07/05/2016 07/05/2016 07/08/2016 07/25/2016

171 RESPONSE in Support re 167 MOTION to Stay All Class Proceedings Pending Appeal filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
172 ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO ENTER DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT UNPUBLISH LLC. A HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHALL BE HELD ON 6/21/16 AT 3:30 P.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 6/6/16. 6/6/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
DEFAULT BY UNPUBLISH LLC FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR, PLEAD OR OTHERWISE DEFEND. (jl, ) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
Default Entered (jl, ) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
173 STIPULATION and Order by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
174 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT BUCK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND DEFENDANT COUNTY OF BUCKS' MOTION TO STAY IS DISMISSED AS MOOT; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 6/7/16.6/8/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
175 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT TO STAY TRIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AND ALL CLASS PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE PREPARATION AND DISSEMINATION OF THE NOTICE TO THE CLASS, UNTIL THE THIRD CIRCUIT DECIDES THE RULE 23 (f) PETITION FILED BY THE COUNTY DEFENDANTS; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 6/8/16. 6/8/16 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
176 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE HEARING RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT held on 6/21/16. Court Reporter: ESR. (jl, ) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
177 ORDER THAT DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC AND UNPUBLISH LLC. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON DAMAGES IS WITHDRAWN; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 6/21/16. 6/22/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) Modified on 6/23/2016 (fb). (Entered: 06/22/2016)
178 Certified Copy of Order from THE USCA THIRD CIRCUIT THAT THE FOREGOING PETITION BY BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA AND BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY ARE HEREBY GRANTED. THE MOTION BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA TO PROCEED AMICUS CURIAE IS DENIED AS MOOT; ETC. (jl, ) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
179 NOTICE OF APPEAL by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number PPE143212. Copies to Judge, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk (jl, ) Modified on 7/8/2016 (fb). (Entered: 07/07/2016)
180 Clerk's Notice to USCA re 179 Notice of Appeal : (jl, ) (Main Document 180 replaced on 7/8/2016) (fb). Modified on 7/8/2016 (fb). Modified on 7/12/2016 (jl, ). (Entered: 07/07/2016)
NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 179 Notice of Appeal filed by BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. USCA Case Number 16−3077 (jaa, ) (Entered: 07/11/2016)
181 Copy of TPO Form re 179 Notice of Appeal : (jl, ) (Entered: 07/26/2016)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 21 of 35

08/23/2016
10/17/2016 12/15/2016 02/10/2017 04/10/2017 06/07/2017 08/10/2017 08/17/2017 08/22/2017 08/23/2017
08/31/2017
09/20/2017 10/04/2017
10/05/2017 10/10/2017

182 ORDER THAT COUNSEL SHALL SUBMIT A JOINT STATUS REPORT ON OR BEFORE 10/18/16, AND SHALL SUBMIT JOINT STATUS REPORTS EVERY DAY DAYS THEREAFTER; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 8/23/16. 8/23/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
183 STATUS REPORT by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
184 STATUS REPORT (dated December 15, 2016) by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
185 STATUS REPORT by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
186 STATUS REPORT by DARYOUSH TAHA. (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
187 STATUS REPORT by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
188 ORDER of USCA THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER OF 5/4/16, GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION IS AFFIRMED; ETC. (jl, ) (Entered: 08/10/2017)
189 STIPULATION TO LIFT STAY by DARYOUSH TAHA. (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL). (SHUB, JONATHAN) Modified on 8/18/2017 (fb). (Entered: 08/17/2017)
190 NOTICE of Appearance by ROBERT J. LAROCCA on behalf of DARYOUSH TAHA with Certificate of Service(LAROCCA, ROBERT) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
191 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE STAY OF THIS MATTER, WHICH WAS ENTERED ON 6/8/16 PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY DEFENDANTS RULE 23 (f) MOTION BY THE THIRD CIRCUIT, BE LIFTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 8/23/17. 8/23/17 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
192 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE LLORET FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE A MOTION FOR AN ORDER APPROVING THE FORM AND MANNER OF CLASS NOTICE BY 10/27/17. ALL FACT DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 12/22/17. ANY MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHALL BE FILED AND SERVED ON OR BEFORE 1/19/18; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 8/31/17. 8/31/17 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
193 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Incur Cost Of Class Notice filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Brief, Declaration, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
194 NOTICE of Hearing:A settlement conference will be held on October 25, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Richard A. Lloret, United States Magistrate Judge. Please report to the James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Room 4006 (Chambers), Philadelphia, PA 19106. A status telephone call will be held one week before on October 18, 2017 at 9:45 a.m. Plaintiffs counsel shall initiate the call to chambers (267−299−7410) once all defense counsel are on the line.(smcc) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
195 RESPONSE in Opposition re 193 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Incur Cost Of Class Notice filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
196 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Susan Lucas re: served Subpoena Produce Documents upon Global Tel Link Corp by personal on 9/22/2017 (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 22 of 35

10/10/2017 10/10/2017 10/10/2017 10/16/2017 10/18/2017 10/24/2017 10/27/2017 10/27/2017 11/01/2017 11/03/2017 11/20/2017
12/04/2017 12/07/2017
12/07/2017
01/11/2018 01/11/2018

197 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Brain Zavodnick re: served Subpoena Produce Documents upon Karen Ann Diaz by personal on 9/25/2017 (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
198 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Mary Kerns re: served Subpoena Produce Documents upon Pa Office Attorney General by personal on 9/20/2017 (DENENBERG, ALAN) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
199 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF DARYOUSH TAHA'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO INCUR COST OF CLASS NOTICE IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 10/6/17.10/10/17 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
200 NOTICE of Appearance by JOSEPH C. KOHN on behalf of DARYOUSH TAHA with Certificate of Service(KOHN, JOSEPH) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
201 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET Settlement Conference held on 10/18/17. (jl, ) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
202 NOTICE: The settlement conference that is scheduled for October 25, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Richard A. Lloret, United States Magistrate Judge, is now CANCELED. It will be rescheduled in the near future. (smcc) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
203 MOTION for Approval of Class Notice filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Memorandum, Brief, Declaration, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit Declaration, Long Form Notice, Short Form Notice, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
204 NOTICE of Appearance by KEVIN LAUKAITIS on behalf of DARYOUSH TAHA with Jury Demand, Certificate of Service(LAUKAITIS, KEVIN) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
205 NOTICE of Hearing:A settlement conference will be held on December 8, 2017 at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Richard A. Lloret, United States Magistrate Judge. Please report to the James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Room 4006 (Chambers), Philadelphia, PA 19106. (smcc) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
206 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET Settlement Conference by TELEPHONE held on 11/1/17. (jl, ) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
207 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF DARYOUSH TAHA'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE FORM AND MANNER OF CLASS NOTICE IS GRANTED, AND PLAINTIFF'S CLASS NOTICE PLAN IS APPROVED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 11/20/17.11/21/17 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
208 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET Settlement Conference held on 12/4/17. (jaa, ) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
209 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT ALL DISCOVERY WILL BE COMPLETED BY 2/5/18 AND ANY MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILL BE FILED AND SERVED ON OR BEFORE 3/5/18; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 12/7/17. 12/7/17 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
210 NOTICE of Hearing:The settlement conference scheduled on December 8, 2017 is CANCELED. A telephone conference is scheduled for January 25, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. which plaintiffs counsel will initiate to chambers (267−299−7410) once defense counsel are on the line or if there is a call−in number that is fine as well. (smcc) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
211 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE DISCOVERY DISPUTE Telephone Conference held on 1/10/18 (jl, ) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
212 ORDER THAT ALL FACT DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 4/6/18. ANY MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR DAUBERT MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED AND SERVED ON OR BEFORE 5/7/18; ETC.. SIGNED BY

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 23 of 35

01/25/2018 02/01/2018
02/05/2018 02/27/2018 03/19/2018 04/02/2018
04/11/2018 04/25/2018 05/24/2018 05/30/2018 06/11/2018 06/19/2018
06/29/2018

HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 1/10/18. 1/11/18 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
213 NOTICE of Hearing:The settlement conference will be held by telephone on April 11, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. which plaintiffs counsel will initiate to chambers (267−299−7410) once defense counsel is on the line or if there is a call−in number that is fine as well. (smcc) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
214 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL APPEAR IN COURTROOM 3B AT 9:00 ON 2/2/18, TO CONFER AND ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE DOCUMENTED IN THE PLAINTIFFS LETTER TO CHAMBERS DATED 1/31/18, AND SHALL CONTINUE NEGOTIATING THROUGH 5:00 P.M. ON THAT DATE, OR THE TIME IN WHICH THE DISPUTE IS RESOLVED, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 2/1/18. 2/1/18 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
215 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE DISCOVERY DISPUTE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 2/2/18. (jl, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
216 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE A DEPOSITION DISPUTE Telephone Conference held on 2/27/18 (jl, ) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
217 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE DISCOVERY DISPUTE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 3/6/18. (jl, ) (Entered: 03/19/2018)
218 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT ALL EXPERT DISCOVERY IS TO BE COMPLETED BY 8/17/18. ANY MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR DAUBERT MOTIONS WILL BE FILED AND SERVED ON OR BEFORE 9/14/18; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 4/2/18. 4/2/18 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
219 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET Settlement Conference BY TELEPHONE held on 4/11/18. (jl, ) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
220 NOTICE by DARYOUSH TAHA Notice of Compliance with Class Notice (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration from Angeion)(SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
221 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET Scheduling Conference held on 05/23/2018. (nd, ) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
222 JOINT STIPULATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH COURT APPROVAL RE: CERTAIN STATEMENTS; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/30/18. 5/30/18 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
223 NOTICE of Appearance by PATRICK C. CULLEN on behalf of DARYOUSH TAHA with Certificate of Service(CULLEN, PATRICK) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
224 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT ANY EXPERT REPORTS FILED BY THE 6/21/18 EXPERT REPORT DEADLINE MAY BE SUPPLEMENTED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE PLAINTIFFS RECEIVED THE ILT DATA IN NATIVE FORM. A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT MAY RELY ONLY ON INFORMATION FROM THE ILT DATA; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 6/18/18. 6/19/18 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 06/19/2018)
225 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT CLARKE FULTON WILL SERVE AS THE COUNTY DEFENDANTS' TESTIMONY FOR TOPICS 2,4,9,12,13,15,17,20 AND 21. THE RESPECTIVE COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF AND COUNTY DEFENDANTS AGREE THAT THIS STIPULATION DOES NOT COVER TOPICS 22 THROUGH 24 OF PLAINTIFFS FIFTH AMENDED FED.R.C.P. 30 (6)(b) DEPOSITION NOTICE AND THAT PLAINTIFFS RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DEPOSE A DESIGNEE ON THESE TOPICS; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 24 of 35

07/24/2018 07/24/2018 08/07/2018 08/14/2018 08/23/2018 09/05/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018
09/21/2018

WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 6/29/18. 6/29/18 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
226 MOTION to Strike Expert Report of Stephen Snook filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Ex. A, # 4 Exhibit Ex. B, # 5 Exhibit Ex. C, # 6 Exhibit Ex. D)(SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
227 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET Settlement Conference held on 7/24/18. (jl, ) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
228 RESPONSE in Opposition re 226 MOTION to Strike Expert Report of Stephen Snook filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
229 REPLY Brief in Support re 226 MOTION to Strike Expert Report of Stephen Snook filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (SHUB, JONATHAN) Modified on 8/15/2018 (fb). (Entered: 08/14/2018)
230 ORDER THAT ANY MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR DAUBERT MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED AND SERVED ON OR BEFORE 9/21/18; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 8/23/18. 8/23/18 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
231 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE EXPERT REPORT OF STEPHEN SNOOK IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 9/4/18.9/5/18 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
232 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief and Certificate of Service.(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
233 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
234 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. Brief, Certificate of Service.(SHUB, JONATHAN) Modified on 9/26/2018 (tjd). (Entered: 09/21/2018)
235 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts by DARYOUSH TAHA. (SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
236 MOTION to Strike Expert Report of Sarah Lageson, PhD filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
237 MOTION to Strike Expert Report of Richard J. Subia filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
238 Joint Appendix re 234 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix, # 5 Appendix, # 6 Appendix, # 7 Appendix, # 8 Appendix, # 9 Appendix, # 10 Appendix, # 11 Appendix)(SHUB, JONATHAN) Modified on 9/26/2018 (tjd). Modified on 9/26/2018 (tjd). (Entered: 09/21/2018)
239 Joint Appendix II re 234 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix, # 5 Appendix, # 6 Appendix, # 7 Appendix, # 8 Appendix, # 9 Appendix, # 10 Appendix)(SHUB, JONATHAN) Modified on 9/26/2018 (tjd). Modified on 9/26/2018 (tjd). (Entered: 09/21/2018)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 25 of 35

09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018
10/01/2018 10/03/2018 10/03/2018 10/04/2018 10/22/2018 10/22/2018 10/22/2018 10/22/2018 10/22/2018 10/22/2018 11/12/2018

240 Joint Appendix IV re: 234 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix, # 5 Appendix, # 6 Appendix, # 7 Appendix, # 8 Appendix, # 9 Appendix, # 10 Appendix)(SHUB, JONATHAN) Modified on 9/26/2018 (tjd). Modified on 9/26/2018 (tjd). (Entered: 09/21/2018)
241 Joint Appendix III re: 234 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix, # 5 Appendix, # 6 Appendix, # 7 Appendix, # 8 Appendix, # 9 Appendix, # 10 Appendix, # 11 Appendix, # 12 Appendix)(SHUB, JONATHAN) Modified on 9/26/2018 (tjd). Modified on 9/26/2018 (tjd). (Entered: 09/21/2018)
242 Joint Appendix V re: 234 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix, # 5 Appendix, # 6 Appendix, # 7 Appendix, # 8 Appendix, # 9 Appendix, # 10 Appendix, # 11 Appendix, # 12 Appendix, # 13 Appendix, # 14 Appendix, # 15 Appendix, # 16 Appendix, # 17 Appendix, # 18 Appendix, # 19 Appendix, # 20 Appendix, # 21 Appendix, # 22 Appendix, # 23 Appendix, # 24 Appendix, # 25 Appendix, # 26 Appendix, # 27 Appendix, # 28 Appendix, # 29 Appendix, # 30 Appendix)(SHUB, JONATHAN) Modified on 9/26/2018 (tjd). Modified on 9/26/2018 (tjd). (Entered: 09/21/2018)
243 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(CULLEN, PATRICK) (Entered: 10/01/2018)
244 MOTION to Seal Document filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Certification of No Opposition, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
245 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 243 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY ATTORNEY PATRICK C. CULLEN TERMINATED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 10/03/2018.10/03/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(amw, ) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
246 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 244 MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 10/04/2018.10/04/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(amw, ) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
247 RESPONSE in Opposition re 232 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
248 Response to Defendant's Undisputed Facts re 232 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (SHUB, JONATHAN) Modified on 10/23/2018 (lisad, ). (Entered: 10/22/2018)
249 Supplemental Joint Appendix Table of Contents by DARYOUSH TAHA (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit)(SHUB, JONATHAN) Modified on 10/23/2018 (lisad, ). (Entered: 10/22/2018)
250 Omnibus BRIEF in Opposition re 236 MOTION to Strike Expert Report of Sarah Lageson, PhD, 237 MOTION to Strike Expert Report of Richard J. Subia filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (SHUB, JONATHAN) Modified on 10/23/2018 (lisad, ). (Entered: 10/22/2018)
251 BRIEF in Opposition re 234 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) Modified on 10/23/2018 (lisad, ). (Entered: 10/22/2018)
252 Counter−Statement of Disputed Facts in Opposition re 234 MOTION for Summary Judgment by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) Modified on 10/23/2018 (lisad, ). (Entered: 10/22/2018)
253 REPLY Brief in Support re 234 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (SHUB, JONATHAN) Modified on 11/13/2018 (fb). (Entered:

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 26 of 35

11/12/2018 11/13/2018 11/13/2018 11/13/2018 11/21/2018 12/19/2018
01/09/2019 01/16/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/22/2019
01/24/2019 01/24/2019 02/14/2019

11/12/2018)
254 NOTICE by DARYOUSH TAHA re 235 Statement Reply in Support of Undisputed Facts (SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 11/12/2018)
255 REPLY Brief in Support re 236 MOTION to Strike Expert Report of Sarah Lageson, PhD filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) Modified on 11/14/2018 (fb). (Entered: 11/13/2018)
256 REPLY Brief in Support re 237 MOTION to Strike Expert Report of Richard J. Subia filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) Modified on 11/14/2018 (fb). (Entered: 11/13/2018)
257 REPLY Brief in Support re 232 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(CHERNAK, FRANK) Modified on 11/14/2018 (fb). (Entered: 11/13/2018)
258 MOTION to Strike 254 Notice (Other) filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 11/21/2018)
259 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE A BRIEF NOT TO EXCEED EIGHT PAGES DOUBLE−SPACING EXPLAINING WHY THE DEFENSE HAS NOT BEEN WAIVED, NO LATER THAN 1/9/19. PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE A RESPONSE NOT TO EXCEED EIGHT PAGES DOUBLE SPACED, NO LATER THAN 1/16/19; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 12/18/18. 12/19/18 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
260 Memorandum in Response to the Court's December 19, 2018 Order re 232 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 01/09/2019)
261 Memorandum in Response to the Court's December 19. 2018 Order re 234 MOTION for Summary Judgment by DARYOUSH TAHA. (SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 01/16/2019)
262 NOTICE by DARYOUSH TAHA of Supplemental Authority (SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
263 EXHIBIT To The Supplemental Authority by DARYOUSH TAHA.. (SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
264 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Opposition to "Plaintiff's Brief on Whether Defendants Waived the Statute of Limitations Affirmative Defense" filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Reply Brief. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Reply Brief)(RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
265 NOTICE by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA re 262 Notice (Other) Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority (RUBLIN, BURT) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
266 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT REPLY BRIEF IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 1/23/19.1/24/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
267 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 2/14/19. 2/14/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 27 of 35

02/14/2019 02/26/2019
03/05/2019 03/06/2019 03/06/2019 03/08/2019 03/08/2019 03/08/2019 03/13/2019 03/15/2019 03/29/2019 04/09/2019
04/16/2019 04/17/2019 04/19/2019

268 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 2/14/19. 2/14/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
269 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER THAT THE CASE IS SPECIALLY−LISTED FOR TRIAL TO COMMENCE ON 5/20/19 AT 9:00 A.M.. PLAINTIFF PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM ARE DUE BY 5/6/19. DEFENDANTS PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM ARE DUE BY 5/13/19. A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 5/17/19 AT 3:00 P.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 2/26/19. 2/26/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
270 NOTICE − FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE − RESCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY MAY 14, 2019 AT 5:00 P.M. IN CHAMBERS (amw, ) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
271 NOTICE of Appearance by AARTHI MANOHAR on behalf of DARYOUSH TAHA with Certificate of Service (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(MANOHAR, AARTHI) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
272 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET Pretrial Conference held on 3/6/19. (jl, ) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
273 AMENDED DOCUMENT by DARYOUSH TAHA. Amended Notice of Appearance. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(MANOHAR, AARTHI) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
274 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET Pretrial Conference WITH PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL held on 3/7/19. (jl, ) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
275 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET Pretrial Conference WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL held on 3/8/19. (jl, ) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
276 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED AS MOOT; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 3/12/19.3/13/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 03/13/2019)
277 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET Pretrial Conference with Plaintiff's counsel held on 3/14/19. (jl, ) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
278 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET Pretrial Conference WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL held on 3/29/19. (jl, ) (Entered: 03/29/2019)
279 NOTICE of Hearing:A settlement conference will be held on April 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Richard A. Lloret, United States Magistrate Judge at the James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Room 4006 (Chambers), Philadelphia, PA 19106. Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel are not to report for the conference. Only defendants and defense counsel are to report. (smcc ) (Entered: 04/09/2019)
280 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET Settlement Conference held on 4/15/19. (jl, ) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
281 NOTICE of Appearance by THEODORE M. SCHAER on behalf of DARYOUSH TAHA with Jury Demand and Certificate of Service(SCHAER, THEODORE) (Entered: 04/17/2019)
282 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL FILE ALL MOTIONS IN LIMINE. BY 5/3/19 PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE HIS PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM. BY 5/10/19 DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE THEIR PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM. ON 5/14/19 AT 5:00 P.M. THE COURT WILL CONDUCT THE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 4/19/19. 4/19/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/19/2019)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 28 of 35

04/29/2019 04/29/2019 05/03/2019 05/03/2019 05/03/2019 05/03/2019 05/03/2019 05/03/2019
05/03/2019 05/03/2019
05/03/2019

283 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE THE EXPERT REPORT AND PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF SARAH LAGESON AND RICHARD SUBIA. THE MOTION AS TO LAGESON IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 4/29/19. 4/29/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/29/2019)
284 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE THE EXPERT REPORT AND PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF SARAH LAGESON AND RICHARD SUBIA. THE MOTION AS TO LAGESON IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE MOTION AS TO SUBIA IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 4/29/19. 4/29/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/29/2019)
285 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to CHRIA Audits filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Proposed Order, Motion, Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit Harris Gubernick 4/26/2018 deposition at p. 104 lines 11−13 and p. 211 lines 11−18, # 3 Exhibit 2014−2016 CHRIA Audit Report, # 4 Exhibit Clarke Fulton 5/16/2018 deposition at p. 244 lines 9−14)(LAROCCA, ROBERT) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
286 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to 2012 Advisory Opinion From Office of Open Records filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Proposed Order, Motion, Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit Advisory Opinion Letter from T. Mutchler to J. Barras (May 3, 2012))(LAROCCA, ROBERT) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
287 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to Criminal Convictions of Class Members filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Proposed Order, Motion, Memorandum.(LAROCCA, ROBERT) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
288 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to Plaintiffs Lack of Compensatory Damages Under CHRIA filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Proposed Order, Motion, Memorandum.(LAROCCA, ROBERT) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
289 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to Other Litigation filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Proposed Order, Motion, Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Daryoush Taha 9/17/2014 deposition at pp. 80−82, 144, 203−229 and Exhibits 11− 21)(LAROCCA, ROBERT) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
290 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Other Counties ILTs filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Proposed Order, Motion, Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit Clarke Fulton 5/16/2018 deposition at p. 263 line 19−20, # 3 Exhibit Clarke Fulton 8/27/2014 deposition at p. 111 lines 6−19, # 4 Exhibit Harris Gubernick 9/18/2014 deposition at pp. 41−42, 65, # 5 Exhibit Harris Gubernick 4/26/2018 deposition at pp. 175−180, 222, # 6 Exhibit CCAP email thread dated 3/8/2018, # 7 Exhibit CCAP Memo dated 7/19/2018, # 8 Exhibit Harris Gubernick 9/18/2014 deposition at pp. 65 line 21 to 67 line 6, # 9 Exhibit Screenshots of other counties Inmate Lookup Tools)(LAROCCA, ROBERT) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
291 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to The Impact of a Damages Award on the Taxpayers of Bucks County filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Proposed Order, Motion, Memorandum.(LAROCCA, ROBERT) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
292 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Specific Opinions and/or Statements of Defendants Expert Stephen Snook filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Proposed Order, Motion, Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit Defendants Expert Opinion Report of Stephen Snook, # 3 Exhibit Stephen Snook 3/26/2018 deposition, # 4 Exhibit Stephen Snook 7/20/2018 deposition, # 5 Exhibit Harris Gubernick 9/18/2014 deposition at pp. 65−67, # 6 Exhibit CHRIA 2014−2015−2016 Audit Review)(LAROCCA, ROBERT) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
293 PRE−TRIAL MEMORANDUM by DARYOUSH TAHA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − BRIEF CONCISE SUMMARY OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND THE PARTIES CONTENTIONS, # 2 Exhibit 2 − ALL STIPULATIONS OF COUNSEL AND AN ITEMIZED LIST OF ANY ADMISSIONS, # 3 Exhibit 3 − A LIST OF EACH WITNESS TO BE PRESENTED WITH A STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THEIR EXPECTED TESTIMONY. WITNESSES NOT LISTED MAY NOT BE

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 29 of 35

05/03/2019 05/03/2019 05/03/2019 05/03/2019 05/03/2019 05/03/2019 05/09/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019

CALLED BY THAT PARTY IN ITS CASE−IN−CHIEF, # 4 Exhibit 4 − THE IDENTITY OF, AND A CURRICULUM VITAE FOR, EACH EXPERT WITNESS TO BE CALLED AT TRIAL WITH A CONCISE STATEMENT OF EACH OPINION TO BE OFFERED BY THE EXPERT., # 5 Exhibit 5 − PLAINTIFFS DESIGNATIONS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, # 6 Exhibit 6 − JOINT TRIAL EXHIBITS, # 7 Exhibit 7 − CLAIMANTS ITEMIZATION OF DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF SOUGHT. IF RELIEF OTHER THAN MONETARY DAMAGES IS SOUGHT, INFORMATION ADEQUATE FOR FRAMING AN ORDER GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT., # 8 Exhibit 8 − A STATEMENT OF ANY ANTICIPATED LEGAL ISSUES ON WHICH THE COURT WILL BE REQUIRED TO RULE, # 9 Exhibit 9 − PROPOSED POINTS FOR CHARGE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS, PROPOSED VERDICT FORMS OR SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY. COUNSEL MAY FILE SUPPLEMENT POINTS UPON CLOSE OF TESTIMONY.)(LAROCCA, ROBERT) Modified on 5/6/2019 (fb). (Entered: 05/03/2019)
294 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Evidence Related to Policies, Events, and Defendants' Inmate Lookup Tool After June 18, 2013 filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief and Certificate of Service.(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
295 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Evidence Regarding Expungements filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief and Certificate of Service.(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
296 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Testimony on Compensatory Damages filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief and Certificate of Service.(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
297 MOTION in Limine to preclude testimony of Michael Klimpl, Esq. filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
298 MOTION in Limine to preclude evidence of FBI/SID numbers filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
299 MOTION in Limine to Bifurcate and Decertify the Class filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
300 NOTICE of Appearance by BRETT M. WALDRON on behalf of BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA with Certificate of Service(WALDRON, BRETT) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
301 NOTICE − FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE RESET FOR FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2019 AT 3:00 P.M. IN CHAMBERS. PLEASE MAKE NOTE OF THIS CHANGE. THANK YOU. (amw, ) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
302 PAPERLESS ORDER RESCHEDULING THE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE TO MONDAY, MAY 20, 2019, AT 2:00 PM IN CHAMBERS (3809). JURY SELECTION SHALL COMMENCE AT 9:00 AM ON TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2019. BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 05/10/2019. (mima, ) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
303 RESPONSE in Opposition re 299 MOTION in Limine to Bifurcate and Decertify the Class, 294 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Evidence Related to Policies, Events, and Defendants' Inmate Lookup Tool After June 18, 2013, 295 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Evidence Regarding Expungements, 298 MOTION in Limine to preclude evidence of FBI/SID numbers, 297 MOTION in

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 30 of 35

05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/10/2019 05/13/2019 05/13/2019 05/14/2019 05/14/2019

Limine to preclude testimony of Michael Klimpl, Esq., 296 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Testimony on Compensatory Damages filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (LAROCCA, ROBERT) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
304 RESPONSE to Motion re 286 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to 2012 Advisory Opinion From Office of Open Records filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
305 RESPONSE to Motion re 292 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Specific Opinions and/or Statements of Defendants Expert Stephen Snook filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
306 RESPONSE in Opposition re 285 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to CHRIA Audits filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
307 RESPONSE in Opposition re 290 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Other Counties ILTs filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
308 RESPONSE to Motion re 289 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to Other Litigation filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
309 RESPONSE to Motion re 287 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to Criminal Convictions of Class Members filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
310 RESPONSE to Motion re 291 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to The Impact of a Damages Award on the Taxpayers of Bucks County filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
311 RESPONSE to Motion re 288 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Reference to Plaintiffs Lack of Compensatory Damages Under CHRIA filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
312 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
313 Proposed Voir Dire by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
314 Statement (Joint Statement to the Jury) by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
315 MOTION for Leave to File filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Audit Motion in Limine. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
316 AMENDED DOCUMENT by DARYOUSH TAHA. Amendment to 293 Trial Brief,,,,, Amended Exhibit C to Plaintiff's Pre Trial Motion. (SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 05/14/2019)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 31 of 35

05/16/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019
05/17/2019

317 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief With Proposed Reply Brief Annexed filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Brief.(LAROCCA, ROBERT) (Entered: 05/16/2019)
318 ORDER THAT THE 315 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/19.5/17/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(lisad, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
319 ORDER THAT THE 292 MOTION IN LIMINE IS GRANTED AS IT IS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/19.5/17/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(lisad, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
320 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ON COMPENSATORY DAMAGES IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/19.5/17/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
321 ORDER THAT THE 289 MOTION IN LIMINE IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/19.5/17/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(lisad, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
322 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE REGARDING EXPUNGEMENTS (DOC. NO. 295 ) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/2019.5/17/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(amas) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
323 ORDER THAT THE 290 MOTION IN LIMINE IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS IT IS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/19.5/17/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(lisad, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
324 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO CHRIA AUDITS IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS ARE PRECLUDED FROM REFERRING TO ANY AUDIT PERFORMED AFTER JUNE 2013. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/2019.5/17/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(md) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
325 ORDER THAT THE 288 MOTION IN LIMINE IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/19.5/17/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(lisad, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
326 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO THE IMPACT OF A DAMAGES AWARD ON THE TAXPAYERS OF BUCKS COUNTY (DOC. NO. 291 ) IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/2019.5/17/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(amas) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
327 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO 2012 ADVISORY OPINON FROM OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS IS GRANTED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/19.5/17/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
328 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS OF CLASS MEMBERS IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/19.5/17/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
329 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE RELATED TO POLICIES, EVENTS, AND DEFENDANTS' INMATE LOOKUP TOOL AFTER JUNE 18, 2013 IS GRANTED. THE PARTIES ARE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE RELATED TO POLICIES, EVENTS AND DEFENDANTS' INMATE LOOKUP TOOL AFTER JUNE 18, 2013. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/2019. 5/17/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(md) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
330 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL KLIMPL, ESQ IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 32 of 35

05/17/2019
05/17/2019
05/22/2019 05/23/2019 05/23/2019 05/29/2019 05/29/2019 05/29/2019 05/29/2019
05/29/2019
06/21/2019
06/26/2019 06/26/2019 06/26/2019
06/26/2019

WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/19. 5/17/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
331 ORDER DENYING 299 MOTION IN LIMINE TO BIFURCATE THE ISSUES OF WILLFULNESS AND THE AMOUNT OF ANY PUNITIVE DAMAGES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/19.5/17/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(afm, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
332 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO PRECLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF AND REFERENCE TO ANY CLASS MEMBERS' FBI AND SID NOS. IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/17/19. 5/17/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
333 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE Jury Trial DAY 1 held on 5/21/19 Court Reporter: ESR. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/22/2019)
334 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE Jury Trial DAY 2 held on 5/22/19. Court Reporter: ESR. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
335 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE Jury Trial DAY 3 held on 5/23/19. Court Reporter: ESR. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
336 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE Jury Trial DAY 4 held on 5/24/19. Court Reporter: ESR. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
337 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE Jury Trial DAY 5 completed on 5/28/19 Court Reporter: ESR. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
338 VERDICT FORM. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
339 ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PA BE AND SHE IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO FURNISH LUNCH FOR JURORS ENGAGED IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/28/19. 5/29/19 ENTERED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
340 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE IS DENIED AS MOOT; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/29/19.5/30/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
341 NOTICE OF CONFERENCE CALL − WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2019 AT 2:30 P.M. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SHALL INITIATE THE CALL AND ONCE ALL PARTIES ARE ON THE LINE CALL IN TO CHAMBERS AT 267−299−7450 TO CONNECT THE JUDGE. THANK YOU. (amw, ) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
342 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE Telephone Conference held on 6/26/19 (jl, ) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
343 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5/21/19 before Judge BEETLESTONE. Court Reporter: ANN MARIE MITCHELL. JURY SELECTION/VOIR DIRE (jl, ) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
344 TRANSCRIPT of held on 5/21/19, before Judge BEETLESTONE. Court Reporter/Transcriber ANN MARIE MITCHELL. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 7/17/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/29/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/24/2019. (jl, ) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
345 TRANSCRIPT of held on 5/22/19, before Judge BEETLESTONE. Court Reporter/Transcriber ANN MARIE MITCHELL. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 7/17/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/29/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/24/2019. VOLUME 2(jl, ) (Entered: 06/27/2019)

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 33 of 35

06/26/2019 06/26/2019 06/26/2019 06/26/2019 07/02/2019
07/02/2019 07/02/2019 07/15/2019 07/26/2019 07/26/2019

346 TRANSCRIPT of held on 5/23/19, before Judge BEETLESTONE. Court Reporter/Transcriber ANN MARIE MITCHELL. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 7/17/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/29/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/24/2019. VOLUME 3 (jl, ) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
347 TRANSCRIPT of held on 5/24/19, before Judge BEETLESTONE. Court Reporter/Transcriber ANN MARIE MITCHELL. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 7/17/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/29/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/24/2019. VOLUME 4(jl, ) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
348 TRANSCRIPT of held on 5/28/19, before Judge BEETLESTONE. Court Reporter/Transcriber ANN MARIE MITCHELL. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 7/17/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/29/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/24/2019. VOLUME 5 JURY (jl, ) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
349 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript with Certificate of Service re 345 Transcript − PDF, 344 Transcript − PDF, 348 Transcript − PDF, 346 Transcript − PDF, 347 Transcript − PDF, Entered and Copies Emailed (jl, ) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
350 ORDER THAT JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS AGAINST DEFENDANT BUCKS COUNTY, AND THE BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $1000.00 IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES PER CLASS MEMBER. THE CERTIFIED CLASS INCLUDES ALL PERSONS WHOM NOTICE WAS DIRECTED AND WHO DID NOT REQUEST TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CERTIFIED CLASS. ACTUAL DISBURSEMENT OF ANY FUNDS TO ANY CLASS MEMBER INCLUDING PLAINTIFF IS STAYED PENDING THE COMPLETION OF ANY APPEAL; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 6/28/19. 7/2/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 07/02/2019)
351 ORDER THAT THE JURY HAVING RENDERED A SPECIAL VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF DARYOUSH TAHA. DEFENDANTS SHALL HAVE TWENTY EIGHT DAYS TO FILE ANY MOTION FOR POST TRIAL RELIEF ON OR BEFORE 7/26/19. PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE ANY RESPONSE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF DEFENDANTS MOTIONS ON OR BEFORE 8/9/19; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 6/28/19. 7/2/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 07/02/2019)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: MOTIONS DUE BY 7/26/2019. (jl, ) (Entered: 07/02/2019)
352 STIPULATION AND ORDER CONCERNING EXECUTION ON JUDGMENT, SUPERSEDEAS BOND, PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR COUNSEL FEES AND NON−TAXABLE COSTS, AND PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSION OF BILL OF COSTS, AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 7/12/2019. 7/15/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(amas) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
353 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Renewed) Or Motion for New Trial filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Text of Proposed Order, # 14 Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 07/26/2019)
354 MOTION to Alter Judgment (Remittitur) filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA.Brief, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 34 of 35

07/29/2019 07/31/2019 08/05/2019 08/07/2019 08/23/2019 08/23/2019 09/17/2019
09/20/2019 09/20/2019 09/23/2019
10/02/2019 10/03/2019 10/04/2019
10/04/2019

Certificate of Service)(CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 07/26/2019)
355 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 350 Order,, by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0313−13697929. Copies to Judge, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk and (CHERNAK, FRANK) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
356 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF SHALL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 14 DAYS TO 8/23/19 TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S POST TRIAL MOTIONS; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 7/31/19. 8/1/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
357 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 355 Notice of Appeal (Credit Card Payment) filed by BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. USCA Case Number 19−2761 (dmc, ) (Entered: 08/07/2019)
358 MOVANT JOHN PASSMORE'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO ADD THE BELOW PARGTY JOHN PASSMORE AS A PLAINTIFF TO THE ABOVE ACTION FILED IN THIS COURT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(jpd, ) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
359 RESPONSE in Opposition re 353 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Renewed) Or Motion for New Trial filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
360 RESPONSE in Opposition re 354 MOTION to Alter Judgment (Remittitur) filed by DARYOUSH TAHA. (SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
361 ORDER THAT MOVANT JOHN PASSMORE'S EMERGENCY 358 MOTION TO ADD THE BELOW PARTY JOHN PASSMORE AS PLAINTIFF IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 9/16/19.9/17/19 ENTERED & E−MAILED. COPY MAILED TO PASSMORE. (fdc) Modified 9/18/19 (fdc). (Entered: 09/17/2019)
362 REPLY Brief in Further Support re 353 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Renewed) Or Motion for New Trial filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) Modified on 9/23/2019 (fb). (Entered: 09/20/2019)
363 REPLY Brief in Further Support re 354 MOTION to Alter Judgment (Remittitur) filed by BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. (CHERNAK, FRANK) Modified on 9/23/2019 (fb). (Entered: 09/20/2019)
364 NOTICE OF CONFERENCE CALL re 350 ORDER − CALL SET FOR FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 AT 2:30 P.M. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SHALL INITIATE THE CALL AND ONCE ALL PARTIES ARE ON THE LINE CALL IN TO CHAMBERS AT 267−299−7450 TO CONNECT THE JUDGE. THANK YOU.(amw, ) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
366 MOTION to Seal Document 365 Declaration filed by DARYOUSH TAHA.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(SHUB, JONATHAN) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
368 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 366 MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENT 365 DECLARATION, 367 DECLARATION BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 10/03/2019.10/03/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(amw, ) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
369 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR FOR A NEW TRIAL AND MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT ARE DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 10/4/19. 10/4/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
370 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR FOR A NEW TRIAL AND MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT ARE DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY

Case: 2:12-cv-6867 As of: 10/17/2019 12:30 PM EDT 35 of 35

10/08/2019

BEETLESTONE ON 10/4/19. 10/4/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED. (JL) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
371 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT TAHA WILL DEFER A PETITION FOR THE AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES AND NON−TAXABLE EXPENSES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 23, FED.R.CIV.P. 54 (d)(2) AND 18 PA C.S. & 9183 (b)(2) AND BILL OF COSTS PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV. P.54 (d) (1) UNTIL THE COUNTY DEFENDANTS PENDING APPEAL TO THE THIRD CIRCUIT OF APPEALS IS RESOLVED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 10/8/19. 10/9/19 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 10/09/2019)

 
 Case 2:12-cv-06867-TJS Document 1 Filed 12/07/12 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARYOUSH TAHA 29 MEADOWRUE LANE SICKLERSVILLE, NJ 08081
vs.

CIVIL ACTION

BENSALEM TOWNSIDP 2400 BYBERRY ROAD BENSALEM, PA. 19020
AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STEVEN MORAN 2400 BYBERRY ROAD BENSALEM, PA. 19020
AND LT. CHRISTOPHER M. BARRY, SR BADGE#71 2400 BYBERRY ROAD BENSALEM, PA. 19020
AND CHING-0-CHANG, LLC, d/b/a MUGSHOTS.COM (fictitious name) 40 GREEN POND LANE, GLENMOORE, PA 19343

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO.

COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION

Introduction: 1. Plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, brings this action for injunctive relief and damages, pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Criminal History Records Information Act, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat.§§ 9101-83 (hereinafter referred to as the "CHRIA") and the common laws of Pennsylvania. Parties: 2. Plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, is a citizen of the State ofNew Jersey, residing as captioned. 3. Defendant, Bensalem Township, is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal offices located as captioned.

1

Case 2:12-cv-06867-TJS Document 1 Filed 12/07/12 Page 2 of 11
4. Defendant, Director of Public Safety Steven Moran, was at all material times the ultimate authority within the Bensalem Township Police Department, and was charged with upholding the laws ofBensalem Township, as well as the Laws and Constitutions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America.
5. Defendant, Director of Public Safety Steven Moran is being sued both individually and in his official capacity as an officer, agent and/or employee ofthe Bensalem Township Police Department and the defendant, Bensalem Township.
6. At all material times, defendants, Bensalem Township and Director of Public Safety Steven Moran, were charged with the responsibility of testing, hiring, training, supervising and disciplining members of the Bensalem Township Police Department including in particular, the defendant, Lt. Christopher Barry, Sr.
7. Defendant, Lt. Christopher Barry, Sr., was at all material times employed as a lieutenant with the Bensalem Township Police Department.
8. Lt. Christopher Barry, Sr., is being sued both individually and in his official capacity as an officer, agent and/or employee of the defendant, Bensalem Township.
9. At all material times, defendants, Lt. Christopher Barry, Sr. and Steven Moran, acted within the course and scope oftheir employment, under the color of state law and pursuant to the customs, policies and/or practices of the Bensalem Township Police Department, and defendant, Bensalem Township.
10. Defendant, Ching-0-Chang, LLC, doing business as "Mugshots.com" (fictitious name) is a limited liability corporation, organized and existing pursuant to Pennsylvania law, with a registered office located as captioned.
Jurisdiction & Venue: 1. This court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and the plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State ofNew
2

Case 2:12-cv-06867-TJS Document 1 Filed 12/07/12 Page 3 of 11

Jersey while the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is the lawful residence and/or principal place

of business of all defendants.

2.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C.. § 1391(b) because the cause of action upon which

the complaint is based arose in Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania, which is in the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania.

Factual Averments:

3.

On or about September 29, 1998, the plaintiff was arrested by members ofthe

Bensalem Police Department and charged with a number of offenses.

4.

The plaintiff contested the validity of his arrest and filed a civil action complaint

against Bensalem Township and various officers for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious

prosecution, excessive force, and related state claims on September 28, 2000. See Exhibit "A. "

5.

On or about January 5, 1999, the plaintiff was placed in Accelerated Rehabilitative

Disposition ("ARD") for one year, in relation to one of five counts, and all other charges were

either discharged or nol prossed. See Exhibit "B."

6.

While plaintiff strongly believed himself to be innocent of all charges, the plaintiff

nonetheless accepted ARD in order to secure the automatic expungment of all charges and avoid

the damage to his reputation and career prospects that would arise from having a criminal

record.

7.

On or about January 5, 2000, the Plaintiff completed his period of ARD without

incident. See Exhibit "C. "

8.

On or about January 31, 2000, President Judge R. Barry McAndrews, ofthe Court of

Common Pleas of Bucks County, issued an Order, directing the Bensalem Police Department to

expunge "the arrest record and other criminal records of the defendant [Daryoush Taha] in this

matter.... Request, in so far as it is able, the return of such records as it has made available to

Federal and State agencies and that it destroys such records on receipt thereof... [and] file with

3

Case 2:12-cv-06867-TJS Document 1 Filed 12/07/12 Page 4 of 11

the Bucks County Clerk of Courts - Criminal Division, an Affidavit stating that said records

have been EXPUNGED or destroyed within 30 days of this Order." A true and correct copy of

the Order ofExpungement is attached hereto as Exhibit "D. "

9.

On March 30, 2000, the plaintiff's attorney wrote to the defendant, Steven Moran, of

the Bensalem Township Police Department, advising defendants of the Order ofExpungement

and requesting that a copy of the Affidavit ofExpungement be forwarded to counsel's office. A

true and correct copy ofsaid letter is attached as Exhibit "E".

10.

On AprilS, 2000, the defendant, Lt. Barry, wrote to Plaintiff's attorney, denying that

official notice ofthe Order ofExpungement had been received by Defendants.

11.

On May 5, 2000, Plaintiff's attorney wrote back to the defendant, Lt. Barry,

enclosing a copy of the Order of Expungement and requesting that the Defendant comply with

the Order. A true and correct copy ofsaid letter is attached as Exhibit "C".

12.

On May 23, 2000, the defendant, Lt. Barry, wrote to the plaintiff's attorney,

acknowledging receipt of the Order, and stated that "The Bensalem Township Police

Department has complied with the Expungement order by removing the records from our

publically accessible files. However, the reports have been preserved in a secure location in a

legal file so as to allow for the defense of the civil action that is being pursued by your client

[plaintiff, Daryoush Taha]." A true and correct copy ofsaid letter is attached hereto as Exhibit

"G ".

13.

Upon information and belief, the defendants, Lt. Barry, Bensalem Township, and/or

Steven Moran failed to expunge the plaintiff's records, as required by the January 23, 2000

Order.

14.

On or about June 27, 2000, Defendant, Lt. Barry wrote to the plaintiff's counsel

enclosing verifications that the Pennsylvania State Police and Federal Bureau oflnvestigation

had expunged the Plaintiff's criminal records from their files. See Exhibit "H"

4

Case 2:12-cv-06867-TJS Document 1 Filed 12/07/12 Page 5 of 11

15.

Plaintiffs civil action against the arresting officers settled out of court. See Exhibit

"1"

16.

On December 23,2011, more than three (13) years had passed since the date of

Plaintiffs arrest.

17.

On December 23,2011, no conviction had occurred resulting from the Plaintiffs

arrest.

18.

On December 23, 2011, no criminal proceedings were pending against the plaintiff.

19.

Notwithstanding the above, on December 23,2011, the defendants, Bensalem

Township, Lt. Barry and/or Steven Moran, disseminated the plaintiffs criminal history record

information, including the plaintiffs mugshot, to Defendant, Ching-0-Chang, LLC, without

extracting from the record all notations of arrest, indictments and/or other information relating

to the initiation of criminal proceedings. See Exhibit "J "

20.

Defendant, Ching-0-Chang, LLC, is not a criminal justice agency.

21.

To the contrary, upon information and belief, Defendant, Ching-0-Chang, LLC, is a

limited liability corporation, d/b/a "Mugshots.com," which is in the business of publishing the

criminal records of various individuals on its website, and allowing internet users to comment

on such photographs, in order to draw social media attention to the individual's photograph,

earn advertising revenue from same, and extract a $400.00 fee from the publically disgraced

individual in order to "unpublish" their photograph and information from the website.

22.

Having unlawfully obtained the plaintiffs criminal history record information, the

defendant, Ching-0-Chang, LLC, further disseminated the plaintiffs information on its website,

by posting the plaintiff's name, "mugshot," date ofbirth, and physical description, along with

the plaintiffs date of confinement, date ofrelease, county in which he was arrested, and a partial

list of the charges arising from the plaintiffs arrest, none of which charges resulted in a

conviction, and all of which had been ordered to be expunged within thirty days of January 31,

5

Case 2:12-cv-06867-TJS Document 1 Filed 12/07/12 Page 6 of 11

2000.

23.

As a direct and proximate result ofthe aforementioned acts and conduct ofthe

defendants, jointly and/or severally, the plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, suffered damages including, but

not limited to: damage to his reputation, anxiety, frustration, emotional distress, embarrassment,

the invasion ofhis privacy, and the deprivation of the benefit of bargain in accepting the ARD plea

agreement.

24.

As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the

defendants, jointly and/or severally, the plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, has been obliged to and may

continue to expend various sums of money and to incur various expenditures for legal counseling

and representation.

25.

As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the

defendants, jointly and/or severally, the plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, has and will hereinafter incur

other financial expenses and losses.

COUNT I- 18 Pa.C.S. § 9183 FAILURE TO EXPUNGE RECORDS PURSUANT TO A COURT ORDER DARYOUSH TAHA V. STEVEN MORAN, LT. CHRISTOPHER BARRY
AND BENSALEM TOWNSHIP

26.

Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated herein by reference, as though fully set forth

at length.

27.

As aforesaid, defendants, Director of Public Safety Steven Moran and/or Lt.

Christopher Barry, while acting within the course and scope of their employment, under the color

of state law, and pursuant to the customs, policies and practices of the Bensalem Township Police

Department and Defendant, Bensalem Township, refused and/or failed to expunge the plaintiff's

criminal history records information pursuant to the January 31, 2000 Order ofExpungement.

28.

Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the defendants willfully, intentionally and

maliciously refused and/or failed to expunge the plaintiffs records in order to retaliate against the

6

Case 2:12-cv-06867-TJS Document 1 Filed 12/07/12 Page 7 of 11

plaintiff for pursuing a civil action against fellow officers of the Bensalem Township Police

Department.

29.

The defendants' refusal and/or failure to expunge the plaintiffs criminal history

information pursuant to an Order ofExpungement was in violation of the CHRIA, 18 Pa.C.S. §

(a)(2).

30.

The plaintiff has been aggrieved by the defendants' violation ofthe CHRIA, and

continues to be aggrieved by said violation, as more fully described above.

31.

The plaintiff, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, was unable to discover the above

described violation ofthe CHRIA until approximately October 2012, when the plaintiffleamed

that his "mugshot" and criminal history record information had been published online in December

2011.

32.

Defendant's willful violation ofthe CHRIA entitles the plaintiff to punitive damages.

33.

The plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the damage from the defendants'

violation of the act is ongoing, cannot be fully compensated through the award of monetary

compensation alone, and will continue to persist unless and until the defendants are enjoined to

comply with the previously entered court order and expunge the plaintiffs records from their files.

WHEREFORE, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Criminal History Records Information Act 18 Pa.C.S. §

9183, et seq., the plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, demands judgment against the defendants, Director of Public

Safety Steven Moran, Lt. Christopher Barry, and Bensalem Township, jointly and/or severally, for

compensatory damages, statutory punitive damages, attorney's fees, and an injunction, ordering the

defendants to expunge the plaintiffs criminal records history information.

COUNT II- 18 Pa.C.S. § 9183 WRONGFUL DISSEMINATION OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION
DARYOUSH TAHA V. STEVEN MORAN, LT. CHRISTOPHER BARRY AND BENSALEM TOWNSHIP

34.

Paragraphs 1 through 33 are incorporated herein by reference, as though fully set forth

7

Case 2:12-cv-06867-TJS Document 1 Filed 12/07/12 Page 8 of 11

at length.

35.

As aforesaid, on or about December 23,2011, the defendants, Steven Moran and/or

Lt. Christopher Barry, while acting within the course and scope of their employment, under the

color of state law, and pursuant to the customs, policies and practices of the Bensalem Township

Police Department and Defendant, Bensalem Township, wrongfully disseminated the plaintiffs

criminal records to the defendant, Ching-0-Chang, LLC.

36.

Defendant, Ching-0-Chang, LLC, is not a criminal justice agency.

37.

On December 23,2011, more than three (3) years had passed since the date of

Plaintiff's arrest, no conviction had occurred resulting from the Plaintiffs arrest, and no

proceedings were pending seeking a conviction of the plaintiff.

38.

Notwithstanding the above, on December 23,2011, the defendants, Bensalem

Township, Lt. Barry and/or Steven Moran, disseminated the plaintiffs criminal history record

information to the defendant, Ching-0-Chang, LLC, without extracting from the record all

notations of arrest, indictments and/or other information relating to the initiation of criminal

proceedings.

39.

Specifically, at a minimum, the defendants, Bensalem Township, Lt. Barry and/or

Steven Moran, disseminated the plaintiffs police "mugshot," date of arrest, date of release, and

charges involved in the initiation of criminal proceedings, in violation ofthe CHRIA, 18 Pa.C.S. §

9121 (b)(2).

40.

The plaintiff has been aggrieved by the defendants' violation of the CHRIA, and

continues to be aggrieved by said violation, as more fully described above.

41.

Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the defendants' wrongful dissemination of

his criminal history record information was willful, and was intentionally and maliciously

undertaken in order to retaliate against the plaintiff for pursuing a successful civil action against

officers of the Bensalem Township Police Department.

8

Case 2:12-cv-06867-TJS Document 1 Filed 12/07/12 Page 9 of 11

42.

Defendant's willful violation ofthe CHRIA entitles the plaintiffto punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Criminal History Records Information Act 18 Pa.C.S. §

9183, et seq., the plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, demands judgment against the defendants, Steven Moran, Lt.

Christopher Barry, and Bensalem Township, jointly and/or severally, for compensatory damages, punitive

damages, attorney's fees, and all other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and applicable.

COUNT III- 18 Pa.C.S. § 9183 WRONGFUL DISSEMINATION OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DARYOUSH TAHA V. CHING-0-CHANG, LLC, D/B/A "MUGSHOTS.COM"

43.

Paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated herein by reference, as though fully set forth

at length.

44.

As aforesaid, the defendant, Ching-0-Chang, LLC, d/b/a "Mugshots.com," conspired

with the defendants, Steven Moran, Lt. Christopher Barry, and/or the Bensalem Township Police

Department, to unlawfully acquire the plaintiffs criminal record history information, in order to

further disseminate such material online.

45.

As described above, the defendant took overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to

unlawfully obtain and disseminate the plaintiffs criminal history record information.

46.

The plaintiff has been aggrieved by the defendants, Ching-0-Chang, LLC's violation of

the CHRIA, and continues to be aggrieved by said violation, as more fully described above.

47.

Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the defendants' wrongful dissemination of

his criminal history record information was willful, and was intentionally and maliciously

undertaken to publically shame the plaintiff, in order to exert pressure on the plaintiffto pay four-

hundred dollars ($400.00) to remove or "unpublish" the plaintiffs records from the defendant's

website.

48.

Defendant, Ching-0-Chang, LLC's willful violation of the CHRIA entitles the plaintiff

to punitive damages.

9

Case 2:12-cv-06867-TJS Document 1 Filed 12/07/12 Page 10 of 11

49.

The plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the damage from the defendants, Ching-

0-Chang, LLC's violation of the CHRIA is ongoing, cannot be fully compensated through the

award of monetary compensation alone, and will continue unless and until the defendant is

enjoined to remove the plaintiffs unlawfully acquired, retained and disseminated criminal history

record information from its website.

WHEREFORE, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Criminal History Records Information Act 18 Pa.C.S. § 9183 et. seq., the plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an injunction against the defendant, Ching-0-Chang, LLC, d/b/a "Mugshots.com," directing the defendant to remove the plaintiffs criminal records history information from its website, and enter judgment against the defendant, Ching-0-Chang, LLC, for compensatory damages, statutory punitive damages, attorney's fees, and all other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and applicable.

COUNT IV-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LAW INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BENSADLAERMYTOOUWSHNTSHAIHPAAVN.DSTCEHVINENG-M0-OCRHAANN,GL,TL. LCCH,RDI/SBT/AOP"HMEURGBSHAORTRSY.COM"

50.

Paragraphs 1 through 49 are incorporated herein by reference, as though fully set forth

at length.

51.

Plaintiffbelieves and therefore avers that defendants, Ching-0-Chang, LLC, Steven

Moran, Lt. Christopher Barry, Sr., and Bensalem Township, jointly and/or severally, through their

actions, did inflict serious emotional distress upon plaintiff.

52.

The above-described malicious, intentional and/or reckless acts and omissions of

defendants were outrageous, atrocious and completely intolerable in a civilized society and went

beyond all possible bounds of decency.

53.

The above-mentioned malicious, intentional and/or reckless acts and omissions of

defendants caused the plaintiffto suffer severe emotional distress, anxiety and fear.

54.

The above-described actions of defendants were so malicious and intentional and

10

Case 2:12-cv-06867-TJS Document 1 Filed 12/07/12 Page 11 of 11 displayed such a reckless indifference to the plaintiffs rights and well being, that the imposition of punitive damages is warranted. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment against the defendants, Ching-0-Chang, LLC, Steven Moran, Lt. Christopher Barry, Sr., and Bensalem Township, jointly and/or severally, for compensatory damages and all other reliefthat this Honorable Court deems just and applicable.
ABRAMSON & DENENBERG, P.C.
BY:~~&-~ Ai::DE~G, E~IRE ATTORNEY FOR PLA~IFF
11

 
 - FOR PUBLICATION -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARYOUSH TAHA, Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.

BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and UNPUBLISH LLC,
Defendants.

NO. 12-6867

UNPUBLISH LLC Cross Defendant
BENSALEM TOWNSHIP Cross Claimant

v.

BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY RECORDS/ RECORDS CUSTODIAN EMPLOYEES JANE AND/OR JOHN DOE #1-6, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, FRANK NOONAN and WILLIAM F. PLANTIER
Cross Defendants

OPINION

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Daryoush Taha (“Taha”) seeks to be the lead plaintiff in a class action suit

brought pursuant to the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act (“CHRIA”), 18

Pa.C.S.A. § 9101 et seq.. Taha alleges that Defendants Bucks County and the Bucks County

Correctional Facility (collectively, “the County Defendants”), published the arrest records of

thousands of individuals on a public electronic search tool in violation of the anti-dissemination

provisions of CHRIA. Summary judgment has already been granted in Taha’s favor as to the

County Defendants’ liability (ECF No. 146). Before the Court is Taha’s Motion for Class

Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b). For the reasons that follow, Taha’s motion is granted. II. FACTS
On September 29, 1998, Plaintiff Daryoush Taha (“Taha”) was arrested by members of the Bensalem Police Department and transported to the Bucks County Correctional Facility. Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶¶ 1-2 (“Def. Facts”); Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶¶ 1-2 (Pl. Resp.”). Personnel at the Bucks County Correctional Facility took Taha’s photograph and he was subsequently charged with harassment, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. Def. Facts ¶¶ 3-5; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 3-5. Taha was released one day later. Id. On January 5, 1999, Taha entered the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (“ARD”) program. On January 31, 2000, Judge R. Barry McAndrews of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County issued an order directing the Clerk of Courts of Bucks County, the Bucks County District Attorney, the district court, and the arresting agency to expunge Taha’s “arrest and other criminal records,” and directed Bensalem Township to retrieve all arrest records from federal and state agencies that had been issued the information. Def. Facts ¶¶ 10-11; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 10-11.
In January of 2011, the County Defendants created an electronic search tool that would retrieve corrections data contained in the Offender Management System (“OMS”), a nationwide records management system, and make it available to the public (“the Inmate Lookup Tool”). Def. Facts ¶¶ 13-15; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 13-15; Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Pl. Facts”) ¶¶ 4-6; Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Def. Resp.”) ¶¶ 4-6; Joint Appendix (“JA”) at 685.
2

The following data from Taha’s 1998 arrest was available on the Inmate Lookup Tool: a color photograph of Taha from the shoulders up, wearing a blue shirt and pictured against a gray background; sex; date of birth; height; weight; race; hair color; eye color; citizenship; incarceration location; dated committed to incarceration; release date; case number for the crime charged; and “DC, HARASS” listed under “Charge Information.” Pl. Facts ¶ 11; Def. Resp. ¶ 11; Def. Resp. Exhibit A, p. 3. Additional fields – unfilled in Taha’s case – were available for: complexion; hair length; marital status; FBI number; state ID; current housing section; current housing cell; current housing block; current housing bed; alias information; detainer information; bond information; and, under “Charge Information,” the grade, degree, and date of offense. Id.
As a reflection of the information available in the Offender Management system, the Inmate Lookup Tool was updated automatically; thus, any additions or subtractions regarding a specific individual’s information available on the Inmate Lookup Tool “[weren’t] done manually” by the County Defendants. JA 863, 866.
In September or October of 2011, Taha discovered that his 1998 incarceration information was publicly available through the Inmate Lookup Tool. Def. Facts ¶¶ 24-27; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 24-27. This suit followed. There is no evidence that Taha was ever denied employment, terminated from a position, or subjected to an adverse employment action because of the information on the Inmate Lookup Tool, and Taha has not alleged that he suffered any pecuniary or economic loss as a result of the Inmate Lookup Tool. Def. Facts ¶¶ 37-38, 44-45; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 37-38, 44-45.
In an Order dated March 28, 2016, the Court granted Taha’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgement and found that Taha’s criminal history record information was wrongfully disseminated to the public in violation of the provisions of Pennsylvania’s Criminal History
3

Record Information Act. In the accompanying Memorandum, the Court dismissed Taha’s claim for “actual and real damages,” leaving open the possibility of an award of punitive damages. III. ANALYSIS
Certification of a proposed class under Rule 23 requires an affirmative demonstration that the following four requirements of Rule 23(a) are met: “(1) numerosity; (2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation.” Krell v. Prudential Ins. Co. (“Prudential”), 148 F.3d 283, 308 (3d Cir. 1998); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (“Dukes”), 564 U.S. 338, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). If the plaintiff satisfies the Rule 23(a) criteria, the Court must also determine whether the proposed class fits within one of the three categories of class actions defined in Rule 23(b). Prudential, 148 F.3d at 308.
The court “will resolve factual disputes by a preponderance of the evidence and make findings that each Rule 23 requirement is met or is not met, having considered all relevant evidence and arguments presented by the parties.” In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 320 (3d Cir. 2008). A plaintiff “must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.” Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2550 (emphasis in original). Failure to meet any of Rule 23(a) or 23(b)’s requirements precludes certification. See Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 543 F.3d 141, 147 (3d Cir. 2008).
1. Rule 23(a) Numerosity requires that the class be so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; Taha asserts, and the County Defendants do not dispute, that more than sixty thousand individuals were potentially affected by the Inmate Lookup Tool. Mtn. at 14; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Commonality requires a common question of law or fact among the proposed class members. See e.g., Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56-57 (3d Cir. 1994). Taha asserts,
4

and the County Defendants do not dispute, that the common questions of law and fact are whether the County Defendant’s publication of information on the Inmate Lookup Tool willfully violated CHRIA. With respect to the final two considerations of Rule 23(a), “typicality and adequacy inquiries often ‘tend[] to merge’ because both look to potential conflicts and to ‘whether the named plaintiff's claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence.’” Beck v. Maximus, Inc., 457 F.3d 291, 296 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 626 n. 20 (1997)). However, the adequacy inquiry will also “factor[] in competency and conflicts of class counsel which the typicality requirement does not.” Beck, 457 F.3d at 301. Taha asserts, and the County Defendants do not dispute, that Taha is represented by counsel who are highly experienced in matters relevant to the litigation. Mtn. at 17. Based on the declarations attached to Taha’s motion for class certification, the Court concludes that counsel has the requisite experience, knowledge, and resources to adequately represent the proposed class. Mtn. Ex. H, I.
In evaluating typicality, a court should ask “whether the named plaintiffs’ claims are typical, in common-sense terms, of the class, thus suggesting that the incentives of the plaintiffs are aligned with those of the class.” Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 55. The County Defendants argue that Taha is atypical because: (1) his arrest information had been ordered expunged; and (2) any award of damages could be uniquely affected by the Taha’s Persian1 heritage. Opp’n at 32-33. Defense counsel’s claim at oral argument that “super sensitivity makes [Taha] different than other class members” is not compelling given the Court’s decision precluding recovery of “actual and real” damages. Tr. at 16. The plaintiffs’ pursuit of exemplary and punitive damages
1 Taha stated in his deposition that he “come[s] from a different culture. In the Persian culture the hierarchy of family is far different . . . When the family name is tarnished, everybody’s name is tarnished.” JA 49.
5

asks only whether the CHRIA violation was willful; although the statute does not define willful, the analysis necessarily focuses on a defendant’s conduct rather than the impact on any one plaintiff. 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9183(b)(2). In fact, defense counsel conceded at oral argument that Taha’s heritage “was more of an argument for the actual and real damages,” which the Court disposed of at the summary judgment stage. Tr. at 16. In common sense terms, Taha’s claim that his CHRIA-protected information was willfully published on the Inmate Lookup Tool is typical of the class. Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 55.
Therefore, Taha has satisfied the demands of Rule 23(a) in demonstrating numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.
2. Rule 23(b) In addition to the requirements of Rule 23(a), parties seeking class certification must also
demonstrate that the class is maintainable under one of the categories of Rule 23(b). See In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2004). Taha maintains that the class should be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3). Mtn. at 17-21. The County Defendants oppose on the grounds that individual questions predominate, a class action suit is not superior to other methods of resolving the issues, and the relief sought will not benefit the entire class. Opp’n at 13, 28, 29.
Rule 23(b)(2) provides that a class action may proceed where the party opposing the class has acted on grounds “that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Because all class members in a Rule 23(b)(2) action will be bound by a single judgment without the ability to opt-out, members “must have strong commonality of interests.” Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., 655
6

F.3d 255, 264 (3d Cir. 2011). This commonality of interests is extinguished when damages are more than just “incidental” to the injunctive or declaratory relief. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360-61.
Even the most cursory review of Taha’s claims and arguments reveal that this case is focused on the award of monetary damages over all else; the County Defendants have even argued that injunctive relief would be moot. Although Taha’s claim for “actual and real” damages was dismissed at the summary judgment stage, other potential class members may yet have “actual and real” claims that would require highly individualized damages calculations. The Court cannot bind the class under Rule 23(b)(2) when monetary damages are not merely “incidental” to injunctive relief. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360-61. “[P]laintiffs with individual monetary claims [need] to decide for themselves whether to tie their fates to the class representatives’ or go it alone—a choice Rule 23(b)(2) does not ensure that they have.” Id. at 364 (emphasis in original). Thus, Taha has not met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).
The class may still be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) if Taha can show that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” This Court has already held that the County Defendants improperly published CHRIA protected information on the Inmate Lookup Tool (ECF No. 146). The only question remaining in this case concerns the award of punitive damages: whether the County Defendants’ violation of CHRIA by posting criminal history record information was “willful.” 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9183(b)(2). The class-wide question of fact as to the County Defendants’ willfulness predominates over any individual issues of its potential members.
7

The superiority requirement “asks the court to balance, in terms of fairness and efficiency, the merits of the class action against those of alternative available methods of adjudication.” Prudential, 148 F.3d at 316. The County Defendants’ sole argument against superiority arises from the potential for individualized determinations of “actual and real damages” which, as discussed supra, have already been eliminated from the case. Given that the size of the class numbers in the tens of thousands, that there is no other pending litigation seeking relief for the same wrongdoing, and that efficiency can be achieved by resolving the issues common to all class members in one suit, a class action is the most viable method of adjudication.
Thus, Taha has met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) by demonstrating that questions common to the class predominate over those affecting individual members and that a class action suit is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
An appropriate Order follows. BY THE COURT: /S/WENDY BEETLESTONE, J. _______________________________ WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.
8

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARYOUSH TAHA

:

Individually and on Behalf of

:

All Others Similarly Situated

:

:

v.

:

:

BUCKS COUNTY, et al.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-6867

L. Felipe Restrepo, J.

MEMORANDUM

December 30, 2015

Before the Court is the motion of Defendant Citizen Information Associates, LLC

(“CIA”) seeking summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, on Plaintiff

Daryoush Taha’s sole remaining claim against it for false light invasion of privacy under

Pennsylvania law. For the reasons that follow, CIA’s motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND Taha was arrested by the Bensalem police on September 29, 1998 and processed into
custody at the Bensalem Police Department. Taha was then transferred to the Bucks County Correctional Facility (“BCCF”) and charged with a criminal offense. Pursuant to his arrest, Taha’s booking photograph, or mugshot, was taken.1 Although Taha believed himself to be innocent of all charges against him, he accepted an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition

1

Taha points out in his opposition brief the distinction between a booking photograph and a

mugshot: the former is taken at the prison or county jail, often while the subject of the photograph is clad

in a prison jumpsuit, whereas the latter is taken at the police station with the subject still in street clothes.

See Pl.’s Opp. Br. (ECF Document 98) at 3 n.1. Although the parties appear to agree that Taha’s photo at

issue in this matter was a “booking photograph,” they have used the terms interchangeably throughout

this litigation and do so in their summary judgment briefing. For the sake of simplicity, the Court will

hereinafter use the term “booking photograph,” as this distinction has no bearing on the Court’s analysis

or conclusions here.

1

(“ARD”) in January 1999 to ensure expungement of his arrest. Taha completed the ARD

program one year later and the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas then entered an

expungement order.

In 2007, Bucks County and the BCCF created a public website that included the booking

photographs and arrest records of individuals who had been incarcerated in Bucks County over a

period of many years. The website, referred to as the Inmate Lookup Tool, included Taha’s

1998 booking photograph and arrest information, but did not include details on the subsequent

ARD or expungement.

In December 2011, CIA obtained Taha’s booking photograph and arrest information,

along with Taha’s name and age, directly from the BCCF website and re-published them on

CIA’s own websites bustedmugshots.com and mugshotsonline.com. CIA did not request or

obtain Taha’s consent for the publication. No information about the subsequent expungement

was provided on CIA’s websites, and no representative of CIA independently verified whether

Taha’s record had been expunged before it published the information. CIA relied on Bucks

County to ensure that the information published on the Inmate Lookup Tool was accurate and

eligible for release, with a belief that nearly all larger municipalities, like Bucks County, had a procedure in place to prevent the dissemination of expunged records.2

During the relevant time period, CIA generally charged individuals a fee to have their

photographs and arrest information removed from its websites. However, upon request, CIA

would remove from its websites any record that had been expunged, free of charge. To initiate

removal of an expunged record, an individual could follow an online procedure or contact CIA

via phone or e-mail. At no point prior to the filing of this action did Taha (or anyone on Taha’s

2

According to a representative from the Bucks County Department of Corrections, such a

procedure did, in fact, exist in the County, though CIA does not claim that it was specifically made aware

of Bucks County’s procedure.

2

behalf) inform CIA that Taha’s record had been expunged or request to remove Taha’s information and photograph from CIA’s websites.
Taha’s Third Amended Complaint (ECF Document 72) contains a single claim against CIA for false light invasion of privacy under Pennsylvania law (Count III). Taha alleges in Count III that the placement of his booking photograph and arrest record on CIA’s websites publicized Taha’s arrest, which had been expunged, and falsely portrayed him as a convicted criminal. CIA now moves for summary judgment on this claim.
II. JURISDICTION AND LEGAL STANDARDS The Court has jurisdiction in this diversity action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and
Pennsylvania’s substantive law applies. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-80 (1938). In interpreting Pennsylvania law, this Court is bound by the decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Wirth v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 469 F.3d 305, 309 (3d Cir. 2006). When there is a novel question of law or the law is unclear and there is no controlling precedent on the issue from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, this Court must predict how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would rule and give “due regard, but not conclusive effect, to the decisional law of lower state courts.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buffetta, 230 F.3d 634, 637 (3d Cir. 2000); see also id.; West v. AT&T Co., 311 U.S. 223, 237 (1940).
Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the court must consider “the underlying facts and all reasonable
3

inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Slagle v. Cnty. of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262, 264 (3d Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the movant carries this initial burden to show that the non-moving party cannot support its claims with the available evidence, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings and point to “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” as reflected in affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file. See id. at 323-24. The nonmoving party “must present more than just bare assertions, conclusory allegations or suspicions to show the existence of a genuine issue.” Podobnik v. U.S. Postal Serv., 409 F.3d 584, 594 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It must “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of [every] element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Where the non-moving party fails to make such a showing, summary judgment must be granted for the moving party. See Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014).
Although Taha’s briefing raised a limited number of facts he contended were disputed and material to his false light claim, Taha subsequently conceded at oral argument, when asked
4

directly by the Court, that there were no facts in dispute and that Taha’s claim is ripe for determination as a matter of law.3

III. DISCUSSION
Four distinct torts are available to plaintiffs under Pennsylvania law where there has been
an alleged invasion of privacy: (1) intrusion upon seclusion; (2) appropriation of name or
likeness; (3) publicity given to private life; and (4) publicity placing a person in false light.
Marks v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa., 331 A.2d 424, 430 (Pa. 1975). In Count III of the Third Amended
Complaint, Taha brings a claim against CIA for the last of the four torts, which is commonly referred to as “false light invasion of privacy.”4 Pennsylvania has adopted the definition of false
light invasion of privacy provided by the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which describes the tort
as follows:
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E; Graboff v. Colleran Firm, 744 F.3d 128, 136 (3d Cir.
2014) (defining the tort as one that “imposes liability on a person who publishes material that ‘is
not true, is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and is publicized with knowledge or in
reckless disregard of its falsity’” (quoting Larsen v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 543 A.2d 1181,

3

See Mot. Summ. J. Hr’g Tr. 9:13-11:11, Apr. 24, 2015 (“THE COURT: Are there any facts in

dispute with respect to . . . CIA? MR. SHUB: No. THE COURT: No facts in dispute, okay.”).

4

Taha also alleges in Count III a claim for false light invasion of privacy against Unpublish, LLC

(“Unpublish”), a separate defendant in this matter. See Docs. 69, 72. Upon review of the docket, it

appears that Unpublish has not filed an Answer to the operative Third Amended Complaint or otherwise

moved to dismiss this sole claim against it.

5

1188 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988))).5 The standard set forth in subsection (b) of the Restatement mirrors the “actual malice” standard established by the Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964), which was designed to impose the First Amendment protections of free speech and press on common law defamation claims. The Supreme Court applied the New York Times “actual malice” standard to false light claims in Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967). In short, false light invasion of privacy claims incorporate the same First Amendment protections as claims for defamation under state law.
The parties agree that the “actual malice” standard applies to Taha’s false light claim here, and that CIA never had actual knowledge of Taha’s expungement. See Def.’s Br. (Doc. 962) at 12-15; Pl.’s Opp. Br. 16-20. The parties disagree on whether Taha has carried his burden to show that CIA acted with reckless disregard toward the “falsity” of the information published and toward the false light in which Taha would be placed. CIA points to the declaration of its chief executive officer, Kyle Prall, in support of its argument that its publication of Taha’s arrest information was not done with reckless disregard. Prall declares that CIA relied on the accuracy of the records of Bucks County, stating: (1) “CIA is aware that . . . nearly all larger municipalities, such as Bucks County, have procedures in place to ensure the accurate dissemination of information and systems to prevent the dissemination of expunged records”; (2) “CIA obtained the information regarding Plaintiff’s arrest from the Bucks County Correctional Facility’s website”; and (3) “CIA relied on the publication of the records by Bucks County as evidence that records were accurate and eligible for release.” Def.’s Br., Ex. A, Prall Decl. (Doc. 96-4) ¶¶ 6-7, 10 (emphasis added). CIA did not independently investigate whether Taha’s

5

Even where, as here, published information is literally true, a plaintiff may “establish falsity by

showing that a defendant ‘selectively printed or broadcast true statements or pictures in a manner which

created a false impression.’” Graboff v. Colleran Firm, 744 F.3d at 136 (quoting Larsen v. Phila.

Newspapers, Inc., 543 A.2d 1181, 1189 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)).

6

record, or any other record culled from the BCCF website, had been expunged prior to posting it on its own websites. See Hr’g Tr. 19:4-5.
As noted in Section II, supra, Taha’s briefing identified a limited number of factual disputes that he argued were material to Taha’s false light claim and the issues raised in CIA’s motion, including whether CIA acted with actual malice, or specifically, acted with reckless disregard. However, at oral argument on CIA’s motion, Taha conceded that there were no facts in dispute.6 Accordingly, the Court may resolve as a matter of law whether CIA’s actions here – re-publishing Taha’s information from the Inmate Lookup Tool without independent investigation – amount to actual malice to support Taha’s false light claim. The Court concludes that they do not.
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that “[r]eckless disregard . . . cannot be fully encompassed in one infallible definition” and that “its outer limits will be marked out through case-by-case adjudication.” St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 730 (1968). But the Court has made clear that the standard is subjective, based on a defendant’s actual state of mind, not objective:
[R]eckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual malice. Id. at 731 (emphasis added). And since New York Times, some of the boundaries of this constitutional standard have been established.7 Where a defendant finds internal inconsistencies

6

So the Court understands Taha to agree with the facts as set forth by CIA, including that CIA

relied on Bucks County’s publication of records on the Inmate Lookup Tool as evidence that those

records were accurate and suitable for release to the public.

7

The contours of the “actual malice” standard are most often explored in the context of defamation

claims, but as discussed above, the same standard applies to false light invasion of privacy claims. See,

7

or seemingly reliable information that contradicts the defendant’s assertions, but publishes those assertions anyway, the defendant’s actions may meet the “actual malice” test. See Curtis Publ’g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 161 n.23 (1967). Likewise, where a defendant had “obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of [an] informant or the accuracy of [an informant’s] reports,” a court may also find actual malice. St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 732.
On the other hand, a publisher’s failure to investigate, standing alone, will not amount to reckless disregard. See id. at 733; Curtis Publ’g Co., 388 U.S. at 153-54; New York Times, 376 U.S. at 287; see also McDowell v. Paiewonsky, 769 F.2d 942, 951 (3d Cir. 1985) (finding that “[w]hile it arguably may have been negligent” for the defendant “not to have checked independently the veracity” of certain statements, the defendant’s fault did not rise to the level of actual malice where the defendant had relied on official reports and news accounts). Rather, there must be some evidence that the defendant’s failure to investigate was an attempt to purposefully avoid contradictory information in the face of the defendant’s own, existing doubts about the truth. See Harte-Hanks Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 692 (1989).
Here, Taha points to nothing in the record that reflects CIA actually believed Bucks County included expunged records on the Inmate Lookup Tool. He likewise points to nothing that hints of serious doubts entertained by CIA on this issue. He has not offered any evidence to suggest that an aspect or characteristic of the Inmate Lookup Tool raised CIA’s suspicions that expunged arrests may have been included on the Tool. Nor has he offered any evidence that CIA received tips or other information that expunged records might be included.8 Taha points to nothing to suggest that Bucks County had a reputation for inaccurate recordkeeping, ignoring

e.g., Graboff, 744 F.3d at 137 (observing that “Pennsylvania inferior courts consistently apply the same

analysis to both types of claims when the causes of action are based on the same set of underlying facts.”)

8

In fact, Taha offers no evidence that CIA ever entertained “serious doubts” that expunged arrest

information was included on any municipality’s similar website from which CIA pulled information.

8

expungement orders, or publicizing information regarding expunged arrests. At bottom, there is simply no indication of “obvious reasons to doubt the veracity” of the information provided by Bucks County that might have triggered a duty to investigate further and would suggest “purposeful avoidance” by CIA. Indeed, one might assume that Bucks County and the Bucks County Department of Corrections would be among the most reputable sources for arrest record information maintained by the County.
Taha makes much of CIA’s profit motivations for posting arrest information on its websites, emphasizing that the sites “were a scheme by Defendants” aimed at maximizing profits and “they don’t care who gets hurt.” See Pl.’s Opp. Br. 19. Perhaps that is true. Certainly, CIA makes no attempt to deny that its websites were business endeavors, designed to generate profit. However, this fact alone will not suffice to prove actual malice. Harte-Hanks Commc'ns, 491 U.S. at 667 (“If a profit motive could somehow strip communications of the otherwise available constitutional protection, our cases from New York Times to Hustler Magazine would be little more than empty vessels.”). Furthermore, while Taha repeatedly insists that CIA sought all records, including expunged records, for its websites in order to exploit them for maximum financial gain, his argument is directly refuted here by evidence that CIA did not charge to remove expunged records from its websites, a fact to which the parties specifically agreed at oral argument.
The Court notes that even if Taha had not conceded that there were no material facts in dispute, Taha has not introduced evidence of actual malice sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact and change the Court’s conclusion here. In his briefing, Taha challenges CIA’s evidence of reliance on Bucks County, arguing that CIA “did not rely upon Bucks County to cull the expunged or sealed arrestees from their website, but instead were looking for all arrestees,
9

regardless of whether their records had been sealed or expunged, to place on their websites.” See Pl.’s Opp. Br. 17. In an attempt to support this assertion, Taha leans heavily on a September 2012 decision by a New York state trial court, which addresses CIA’s Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) request to the New York City Department of Corrections (“NYDOC”) for specific information from August 2011 inmate booking records. Taha argues that this decision and the underlying New York FOIL request, which does not specifically ask the NYDOC to withhold sealed or expunged records, suggest that CIA’s claim of reliance on Bucks County to remove expunged records here is disingenuous. But Taha fails to establish any connection between the New York matter and the facts of his own case. There was no FOIL or similar public records request in this case and the parties do not dispute that CIA obtained Taha’s booking photograph and arrest information directly from the BCCF website. Taha has provided no evidence whatsoever that even insinuates CIA sought expunged records from Bucks County specifically.
Although Taha’s allegations of actual malice were sufficient to support his claim for false light at the early stages of litigation and overcome CIA’s motion to dismiss, see Taha v. Bucks Cty., 9 F. Supp. 3d 490, 493-94 (E.D. Pa. 2014), Taha must point to evidence in the record of actual malice in order to survive CIA’s motion for summary judgment now, see Seidman v. Minn. Mut. Life. Ins. Co., 40 F. Supp. 2d 590, 595-96 (E.D. Pa. 1997). He has failed to do so. Ultimately, Taha offers nothing more at this late stage than his own conclusory allegations, unsupported opinions, and suspicions that CIA sought expunged records from Bucks County for publication, which are insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Because Taha has not presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue
10

of whether CIA acted with actual malice when re-publishing Taha’s arrest information, summary judgment is granted for CIA on Taha’s false light claim.9
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, CIA’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and CIA is
dismissed as a defendant to this action. An appropriate Order follows.

9

CIA also argues that summary judgment is appropriate because: (1) CIA did not publish any

private facts about Taha; (2) CIA never published any false statement; and (3) CIA’s publication is

protected by the First Amendment. See Def’s Br. 2. Since Taha has not carried his burden of showing

reckless disregard, it is unnecessary to address CIA’s other arguments here.

11

 
 -

FOR PUBLICATION -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARYOUSH TAHA, Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.

BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and UNPUBLISH LLC,
Defendants.

NO. 12-6867

UNPUBLISH LLC Cross Defendant
BENSALEM TOWNSHIP Cross Claimant

v.

BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY RECORDS/ RECORDS CUSTODIAN EMPLOYEES JANE AND/OR JOHN DOE #1-6, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, FRANK NOONAN and WILLIAM F. PLANTIER
Cross Defendants

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Daryoush Taha brings this putative class action suit against, inter alia, Bucks

County and the Bucks County Correctional Facility (collectively, “the County Defendants”),

alleging that the County Defendants published his expunged arrest record on a publicly available

electronic search tool in violation of Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act

(“CHRIA”). Before the Court are the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment. The

County Defendants assert that they did not disseminate criminal history record information as

defined by CHRIA, that Plaintiff is not entitled to damages, and that Plaintiff’s requests for

injunctive and declaratory relief are moot. Plaintiff opposes and moves for partial summary judgment only on the issue of liability. In addition to the moving papers, the Court held oral argument and solicited supplemental briefings from the parties prior to issuing this decision. II. FACTS
On September 29, 1998, Plaintiff Daryoush Taha (“Taha”) was arrested by members of the Bensalem Police Department and transported to the Bucks County Correctional Facility. Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶¶ 1-2 (“Def. Facts”); Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶¶ 1-2 (Pl. Resp.”). Personnel at the Bucks County Correctional Facility took Taha’s photograph and he was subsequently charged with harassment, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. Def. Facts ¶¶ 3-5; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 3-5. Taha was released one day later. Id. On January 5, 1999, Taha entered the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (“ARD”) program. On January 31, 2000, Judge R. Barry McAndrews of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County issued an order directing the Clerk of Courts of Bucks County, the Bucks County District Attorney, the district court, and the arresting agency to expunge Taha’s “arrest and other criminal records,” and directed Bensalem Township to retrieve all arrest records from federal and state agencies that had been issued the information. Def. Facts ¶¶ 10-11; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 10-11.
In January of 2011, the County Defendants created an electronic search tool that would retrieve data contained in the Offender Management System (“OMS”) and make it available to the public (“the Inmate Lookup Tool”). Def. Facts ¶¶ 13-15; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 13-15; Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Pl. Facts”) ¶¶ 4-6; Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Def. Resp.”) ¶¶ 4-6. The following data from Taha’s 1998 arrest was available on the Inmate Lookup Tool: a color photograph of Taha from the shoulders
2

up, wearing a blue shirt and pictured against a gray background; sex; date of birth; height; weight; race; hair color; eye color; citizenship; incarceration location; dated committed to incarceration; release date; case number for the crime charged; and “DC, HARASS” listed under “Charge Information.” Pl. Facts ¶ 11; Def. Resp. ¶ 11; Def. Resp. Exhibit A, p. 3. Additional fields – unfilled in Taha’s case – were available for: complexion; hair length; marital status; FBI number; state ID; current housing section; current housing cell; current housing block; current housing bed; alias information; detainer information; bond information; and, under “Charge Information,” the grade, date of offense, and degree. Id.
In September or October of 2011, Taha discovered that his 1998 incarceration information was publicly available through the Inmate Lookup Tool. Def. Facts ¶¶ 24-27; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 24-27. Taha was furious about being included on the website and his wife was similarly outraged and frustrated. Def. Facts ¶¶ 28-29; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 28-29. Taha testified that he has a “very proud family,” and that his mother stated that Taha’s arrest and incarceration information was “shameful” and “tarnish[ed] the family name.” Def. Facts ¶ 31; Pl. Resp. ¶ 31. Taha further testified that, as a result of the information being available online, he had difficulty sleeping and suffered “sadness, anger, misery,” and humiliation in front of friends and family. Def. Facts ¶¶ 46-47; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 46-47.
There is no evidence that Taha was ever denied employment, terminated from a position, or subjected to an adverse employment action because of the information on the Inmate Lookup Tool, and Taha has not alleged that he suffered any pecuniary or economic loss as a result of the Inmate Lookup Tool. Def. Facts ¶¶ 37-38, 44-45; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 37-38, 44-45.
3

III. ANALYSIS Summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), “is appropriate
where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330, 345 (2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original). “A genuine issue is present when a reasonable trier of fact, viewing all of the record evidence, could rationally find in favor of the non-moving party in light of his burden of proof.” Doe v. Abington Friends Sch., 480 F.3d 252, 256 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-26 (1986); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-52). A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. See Scheidemantle v. Slippery Rock Univ. State Sys. of Higher Educ., 470 F.3d 535, 538 (3d Cir. 2006). “The reviewing court should view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Burton v. Teleflex Inc., 707 F.3d 417, 425 (3d Cir. 2013). However, to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, “the non-moving party must present more than a mere scintilla of evidence; ‘there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant].’” Jakimas v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 485 F.3d 770, 777 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252).
1. Criminal History Record Information Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act prohibits the dissemination of
“criminal history record information” to an individual or non-criminal justice agency without
4

first extracting “all notations of arrests, indictments or other information relating to the initiation of criminal proceedings where: (i) three years have elapsed from the date of arrest; (ii) no conviction has occurred; and (iii) no proceedings are pending seeking a conviction.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9121(b)(2). The parties disagree as to whether Taha’s information available on the Inmate Lookup Tool falls under the purview of CHRIA as criminal history record information, which the statute defines as “[i]nformation collected by criminal justice agencies concerning individuals, and arising from the initiation of a criminal proceeding, consisting of identifiable descriptions, dates and notations of arrests, indictments, informations or other formal charges and any dispositions arising therefrom.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9102 (emphasis added). The County Defendants argue that the “and” signifies that all of the listed items are necessary to qualify the material as criminal history record information. Taha argues that the “and” should be read in the disjunctive; that is, criminal history record information can consist of any of the items listed in the definition.
The statute’s language is plain; the presence of any of the enumerated data identifies the material as criminal history record information. See e.g. Doe v. Zappala, 987 A.2d 190 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009) (“criminal history record information only applies to: (1) identifiable descriptions, (2) dates and notations of arrests, (3) the criminal charges, and (4) dispositions . . . investigative information that does not fall within one of the above four categories is not expungeable under the CHRIA”) (emphasis added). The County Defendants mistakenly rely on Dep’t of the Auditor General v. Pa. State Police, 844 A.2d 78, 80-81 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004) in support of their claim that all four elements are necessary to classify material as criminal history record information; in that case, the court simply lifted the definition verbatim from CHRIA without further analysis.
5

The disjunctive reading of “and” is supported both by Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent and the Pennsylvania Attorney General. In interpreting Pennsylvania law, this Court is bound by the decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Wirth v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 469 F.3d 305, 309 (3d Cir. 2006). Where necessary to avoid absurd results, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has read “and” to mean “or” in statutes with language similar to CHRIA. See e.g., Penn. Labor Relations Bd. v. Martha Co., 359 Pa. 347 (1948) (“We are convinced that ‘and’ must be interpreted as to include ‘or,’ for it is only in this way that the Act, as applied to various factual situations, can retain the flexibility necessary to achieve the aim for which it was intended”); Thornburgh v. Lewis, 470 A.2d 952, 958 (Pa. 1983) (“The presence of the word ‘and’ between the references [in the statute] does not, as a matter of law, mandate any such implausible interpretation”). It is notable that Pennsylvania’s lower courts have engaged in similar interpretation of “and” and “or.” See Appeal of Martin, 381 A.2d 1321, 1322 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1978) (“courts are often compelled to construe ‘and’ as meaning ‘or’ and again ‘or’ as meaning ‘and’”); see also Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buffetta, 230 F.3d 634, 637 (3d Cir. 2000); see also West v. AT&T Co., 311 U.S. 223, 237 (1940) (District courts may give “due regard, but not conclusive effect, to the decisional law of lower state courts”).
In addition to this precedent, the Pennsylvania Attorney General has published an extensive CHRIA guide. See Commw. of Pa. Office of Att’y Gen., CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION ACT HANDBOOK (7th ed. 2013) (hereinafter “CHRIA Handbook”). Although not binding Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court – and thus, not binding on this Court – the Attorney General’s interpretation is nevertheless “entitled to great weight.” McDowell v. Good Chevrolet-Cadillac, Inc., 397 Pa. 237, 245 (1959) (citing Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bd. of Finance and Revenue, 368 Pa. 463, 471 (1951)). Tellingly, the CHRIA
6

Handbook notes that criminal history record information “can be contained on ‘rap sheet,’ photograph ‘mug shot,’ fingerprint cards, and reports,” and notes that “[t]his is not a complete list but some of the more common places to find criminal history record information.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Thus, despite the County Defendants’ arguments to the contrary, Pennsylvania’s chief law enforcement officer has concluded that criminal history record information is not the equivalent of a “rap sheet.” Def. Mtn. at 8.
Moreover, the County Defendants’ reading is far too narrow in the context of the statute as a whole and would inevitably lead to absurd or unreasonable results. In enacting CHRIA, the Pennsylvania legislature sought “to protect individual privacy and dignity.” See Taha v. Bucks County, No. 12-6867 2014 WL 695205 at *8 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 21, 2014) (“Taha I”) (citing In re Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Bd., 16 Pa. D. & C. 5th 435, 445 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2010)). Pennsylvania’s Statutory Construction Act directs that a court should presume that the legislature did not intend a result that is “absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.” 1 Pa. C.S. §§ 1922(1). Yet, according to the County Defendants’ interpretation, a criminal justice agency could disseminate the identifiable descriptions, dates and notations of arrests, indictments, informations, and formal charges to the public all without violating CHRIA simply by excluding the final disposition of the case. In light of the purpose of CHRIA, such an outcome would be untenable.
Here, Taha’s 1998 arrest and incarceration information released under the Inmate Lookup Tool included: a color photograph of Taha from the shoulders up; sex; date of birth; height; weight; race; hair color; eye color; citizenship; incarceration location; dated committed to incarceration; release date; case number for the crime charged; and “DC, HARASS” under the heading “Charge Information.” Pl. Facts ¶ 11; Def. Resp. ¶ 11; Def. Resp. Exhibit A, p. 3. This
7

data was undoubtedly information collected by a criminal justice agency, arising from the initiation of a criminal proceeding, and consisting of “identifiable descriptions” and “formal charges.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9102. Given the unambiguous definition in CHRIA, Pennsylvania’s rules of statutory construction, relevant decisions by Pennsylvania courts, and the Attorney General’s CHRIA Handbook, this Court finds that the aforementioned information constituted criminal record history information. Therefore, Taha’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted.
2. Damages a. Aggrieved
In order to recover damages for a violation of CHRIA, an individual must first be “aggrieved.” 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9183(b). A party is aggrieved if he can demonstrate that he has standing; that is, “if he can demonstrate that he has a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in the outcome of the litigation.” Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd. v. City Council of Philadelphia, 593 Pa. 241, 259 (2007). The County Defendants argue that Taha has not been aggrieved because the disclosed material did not constitute criminal history record information. Because the Court has determined that the County Defendants did, in fact, release criminal history record information, this argument is rejected.
b. “Actual and Real” Damages The County Defendants further contend that damages may only be awarded for proven economic loss, any award of damages would violate Defendants’ Due Process rights, and punitive damages in this case would be against public policy. Def. Mtn. at 11-12, 19-20. Taha asserts that he is entitled to recover damages without regard to economic loss. Pl. Opp’n at 16-
8

17. The parties agree that Taha has not suffered any economic loss. Def. Facts ¶¶ 35-38; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 35-38.
CHRIA provides that individuals aggrieved by a violation of the statute “shall be entitled to actual and real damages of not less than $100 for each violation and to reasonable costs of litigation and attorney’s fees.” 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9183(b). The term “actual and real damages” is undefined in CHRIA. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “actual damages” as “real, substantial and just damages, or the amount awarded to a complainant in compensation for his actual and real loss or injury, as opposed on the one hand to ‘nominal’ damages, and on the other to ‘exemplary’ or ‘punitive’ damages.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014), available at Westlaw BLACKS. Unrelated Pennsylvania statutes also distinguish between statutory damages and “actual damages.” See e.g., 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq. (Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law) (injured parties “may bring a private action to recover actual damages or one hundred dollars”) (emphasis added); 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8315 (identity theft) (a court may award “[a]ctual damages arising from the incident or $500, whichever is greater”) (emphasis added).
Statutes must be construed “so as to give effect to every word contained therein,” and a court may presume that the legislature “intends to favor the public interest as against any private interest.” 1 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 1921(a), 1922. Thus, a plain reading of the statute indicates that an aggrieved individual under CHRIA must suffer actual injury to recover “actual and real damages.” Because the parties agree that Taha has not suffered any economic injury, he is not entitled to such damages.
9

c. Punitive Damages In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages even when he is not entitled to specific compensatory damages. See e.g., Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., 521 Pa. 97 (1989) (“[e]ven though compensatory damages had not been awarded, punitive damages could be appropriate”); Sprague v. Walter, 441 Pa. Super. 1, 72 (1995) (“[u]nder Pennsylvania law, punitive damages need bear no proportional relationship to the compensatory damages awarded in a particular case”) (citing Kirkbride, 521 Pa. at 193-04). The County Defendants argue that imposition of punitive damages would be contrary to public policy and violate their Due Process rights. Taha counters that CHRIA explicitly permits exemplary and punitive damages against criminal justice agencies, and that to interpret the statute otherwise would render the punitive damage provisions meaningless. At the outset, the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. V (emphasis added). The County Defendants have failed to cite any precedent to support the suggestion that, as government entities, they are entitled to due process. Further, there is no precedent for the proposition that punitive damages imposed pursuant to CHRIA are inapplicable to state agencies. Taha I, 2014 WL 695205 at*4-8 (discussing CHRIA and applicability of damages). In fact, it appears to be quite the opposite: CHRIA specifically regulates governmental criminal justice agencies and, in terms of sanctions, specifies that “any person, including any agency or organization, who violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to . . . the civil penalties provided in section 9183.” 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9106 (emphasis added). As discussed at length in Taha I, several Pennsylvania courts have also held or assumed that CHRIA provides for damages against government units. See e.g., Schmidt v. Deutch Larrimore Farnish
10

& Anderson, LLP, 876 A.2d 1044, 1047 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (“We agree with appellant that the Act clearly provides for civil actions against criminal and non-criminal agencies as well as individuals; the language . . . makes that clear”); In re Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Bd., 16 Pa. D. & C. 5th at 442 (stating that, if a local police department violated CHRIA, “the city would be subject to . . . damage actions brought by persons aggrieved . . . including exemplary and punitive damages”), aff’d, 36 A.3d 631 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011), permission to appeal denied by 44 A.3d 1163 (Pa. 2012). Thus, this Court predicted in Taha I that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would find that CHRIA “demonstrates a clear legislative intent to hold government entities liable for damages for violation of section 9121.” 2014 WL 695205 at *8. Without further guidance from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court since the decision in Taha I, this prediction is unchanged. Accordingly, the County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the award of punitive damages is denied.
3. Injunctive Relief Finally, the County Defendants assert that injunctive and declaratory relief are moot
because the Inmate Lookup Tool no longer provides public access to much of the offending data and, in particular, Taha’s 1998 incarceration information is no longer available on a central database. Def. Mtn. at 22. Taha argues that the County Defendants have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that injunctive relief is moot.
A defendant “cannot automatically moot a case simply by ending its unlawful conduct once sued.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 721, 727 (2013) (citing City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 278 (1982)). Where, as here, a defendant claims that voluntary compliance renders an issue moot, he “bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonable be expected to recur.”
11

Id. (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Service (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000)); see also United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953) (“defendants told the court that the interlocks no longer existed and disclaimed any intention to revive them. Such a profession does not suffice to make a case moot”).
In support of their motion, the County Defendants have incorporated by reference their Motion in Opposition to Class Certification (ECF No. 104), in which they assert that “all information related to [Taha] has been expunged and removed from the County’s OMS database.” Id. at 11. Attached to the motion are deposition testimony and an affidavit from Clarke Fulton, Captain of Administrative Affairs (“Fulton”) for the Bucks County Department of Corrections (Id., Ex. B, Ex. M), in which Fulton stated, respectively, “I believe [the information] was expunged, but I don’t know that for – [sic],” and “[a]fter the County received notice of this lawsuit in 2013, the County deleted all information in its [OMS] database related to Plaintiff Daryoush Taha’s 1998 incarceration” Id., Ex. B at 51-52, Ex. M at 2. Such equivocal statements do not suffice to meet the formidable burden of demonstrating that injunctive relief would be moot. Already, LLC, 133 S.Ct. at 727. Accordingly, the County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be denied.
An appropriate Order follows. BY THE COURT:

March 28, 2016

/S/WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.
_______________________________ WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.

12

 
 Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARYOUSH TAHA Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated 29 MEADOWRUE LANE SICKLERSVILLE, NJ 08081
vs.

CIVIL ACTION
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 55 EAST COURT STREET DOYLESTOWN, PA 18901
AND
BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 1730 S. EASTON RD. DOYLESTOWN, PA 1890
AND
UNPUBLISH LLC d/b/a MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC, C/0 NORTHWEST REGISTERED AGENT LLC 1030 N. ROCKY POINT DRIVE SUITE 150A
TAMPA, FL 33607
AND
CITIZENS INFORMATION ASSOCIATES. LLC d/b/a MUGSHOTSONLINE.COM and BUSTED MUGSHOTS.COM : C/0 REGISTERED AGENT CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 1999 BRYAN ST., STE 900 DALLAS, TX 75201

NO. 12-6867

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT- CLASS ACTION Introduction:
1. Plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, brings this action as a class action for injunctive relief and damages, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Criminal History Records Information Act, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 91 01-83 (hereinafter referred to as the "CHRIA"), and Pennsylvania common law.

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 2 of 15
Parties: 2. Plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, is a citizen of the State ofNew Jersey, residing as captioned. 3. Defendant, Bucks County Pennsylvania, is a political subdivision organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal offices located as captioned, and is responsible for overseeing and operating Bucks County Correctional Facility, which is a "criminal justice agency" as defined by the Pennsylvania Criminal History Records Act ("CHRIA"), 18 Pa. C. S. § 9102. 4. Defendant, Bucks County Correctional Facility ("BCCF") , is an agency of Defendant, Bucks County, with it principle place of business as captioned, and is responsible for the housing of pretrial detainees and prisoner in Bucks County. 5. At all times material to the allegations herein, Bucks County Correctional Facility ("BCCF"), with the permission, consent, knowledge, assistance and financing of Defendant, Bucks County, maintains, or has maintained, a website that disseminates to the public criminal history record information, as defined by 18 Pa. C. S. § 9102, including the expunged criminal history record information of the Plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, and those similarly situated. 6. Defendant, Unpublish LLC d/b/a Mugshots.com is a limited liability company, organized and existing pursuant to Wyoming law, with an agent designated to accept service ofprocess in the State ofFlorida, located as captioned. 7. At all times material to the allegations herein, Defendant, Unpublish LLC d/b/a Mugshots.com maintained a website for commercial profit that published the criminal history record information, including mug shots/booking photograhs (pictures) and arrests records, of persons who had been arrested and persons who had been arrested and had their records expunged, including the mug shot and arrest record of the Plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, and all those similarly situated. 8. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Unpublish LLC d/b/a

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 3 of 15
Mugshots.com, obtained the criminal history record information ofthe Plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, and all those similarly situated, from BCCF's website, and through other sources, including, but not limited to, paying for the information, and then disseminated this information via its website. 9. Defendant Citizens Information Associates, LLC d/b/a BustedMugshots.com and Mugshotsonline.com (hereinafter "CIA") operates the websites BustedMugshots.com and Mugshotsonline.com, and is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Texas with its registered agent as listed above. 10. At all times material to the allegations herein, Defendant, CIA, doing business as BustedMugshots.com and Mugshotsonline.com, maintained websites for commercial profit that published the criminal history record information, including mug shots/booking photographs (pictures) and arrests records, of persons who had been arrested and persons who had been arrested and had their records expunged, including the mug shot and arrest record of the Plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, and all those similarly situated. 11. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, CIA, obtained the criminal history record information of the Plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, and all those similarly situated, from BCCF's website, and through other sources, including, but not limited to, paying for the information, and then disseminated this information via their website. Jurisdiction & Venue: 12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and this is a class action in which Plaintiffs and other Class members and Defendants are citizens of different states. 13. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. '§ 1391(b) because the cause of action upon which

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 4 of 15
the complaint is based arose in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, which is in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Class Action Allegations 14. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all those who had been incarcerated at the Bucks County Prison and whose criminal history records, including photographs, were published on the open website ofBCCF and on behalf of those Pennsylvania citizens who have had their criminal history record information published on Defendants Unpublish LLC' s and CIA's websites. 15. The members ofthe class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. As of February 26, 2013, there were 209,089 entries listing the criminal history record information of individuals on the Bucks County Correctional Facility's website. Although the precise number of class members is unknown to Plaintiff at the present time, it can be ascertained by cross referencing the records that were available on the Bucks County Correctional Facility's website against the records available on the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System Web Portal to determine those individuals who had their criminal history records expunged. If an individual's records were present on the Bucks County Correctional Facility's website, but absent on Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System, then it can be inferred that said individual is a member ofthe class of persons who had their records expunged. The class of persons who were arrested but not convicted can be ascertained in a similar manner. Notice can then be provided to such members by using a combination ofpublished notice a..11d first class mail. 16. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiffs attorneys are experienced in both Civil Rights litigation and class action litigation. There attorneys have approximately twenty-four (24) years of experience litigating various matters in the United States District Court for the

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 5 of 15
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with both experience in class actions and Civil Rights litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and have further handled several dozen matters related to the Pennsylvania CHRIA. Plaintiff intends to pursue this matter vigorously. 17. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Class because all claims result from the same failure of Defendants to comply with the CHRIA and result in the same types of damages. Plaintiff does not have any interest in conflict with other members of the Class. 18. The defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. 19. Furthermore, common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the class, and predominate over any questions affecting solely individual members of the class. Among the questions oflaw and fact common to the members ofthe class are the following:
a) Whether the policy, custom and/or practice of defendants Bucks County/ BCCF in maintaining publicly accessible files listing the criminal history record information, including booking photographs, of individuals who had been arrested and those individual whose records had previously been ordered expunged are in violation of the CHRIA;
b) Whether the use by defendants Unpublish LLC and CIA of the criminal history record of those individuals who had been arrested but not convicted portrayed those individuals in a false light in violation of Pennsylvania common law;
c) Whether the continuing violation of the class members' rights and interests may be remedied through the issuance of an injunction against defendants Bucks County/ BCCF pursuant to CHRIA.

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 6 of 15
Substantive Factual Averments: 20. On or about September 29, 1998, the plaintiffwas arrested by members of the Bensalem Police Department, processed at the Bensalem Police Department, where his mug shot was taken, and charged with a number of offenses. 21. Pursuant to that arrest, Plaintiff was transported to BCCF where Bensalem Police Department provided or made available to BCCF the Plaintiffs arrest record, including the charges for which he had been arrested and for which he was being incarcerated. 22. In addition to the arrest information made available by Bensalem Police Department to BCCF, BCCF also photographed the Plaintiff, and thereby created a file on the Plaintiff that included the information regarding his arrest that was made available by the Bensalem Township Police Department and the booking photograph taken at BCCF. 23. On or about January 5, 1999, the plaintiff was placed in Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition ("ARD") for one year, in relation to one of five counts, and all other charges were either discharged or nol prossed. 24. While plaintiff strongly believed himself to be innocent of all charges, the plaintiff nonetheless accepted ARD in order to secure the automatic expungment of all charges and avoid the damage to his reputation and career prospects that would arise from having a criminal record. 25. On or about January 5, 2000, the Plaintiff completed his period of ARD without incident. 26. On or about January 31, 2000, President JudgeR. Barry McAndrews, of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, issued an Order, directing the Bensalem Police Department to expunge "the arrest record and other criminal records of the defendant [Daryoush Taha] in this matter.... [to] Request, in so far as it is able, the

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 7 of 15
return of such records as it has made available to Federal and State agencies and that it destroys such records on receipt thereof... [and] file with the Bucks County Clerk of Courts - Criminal Division, an Affidavit stating that said records have been EXPUNGED or destroyed within 30 days of this Order." 27. Defendant, Bucks County/BCCF is a "criminal justice agency" pursuant to 18. Pa. C. S. § 9102. 28. Defendant Bucks County/BCCF is a "repository" of the Plaintiffs criminal record as defmed by the Pennsylvania Criminal History Records Act, 18 Pa. C. S. § 9102. 29. Pursuant to 18 Pa. C. S. A.§ 9121, Defendant, Bucks County/BCCF, which is not a "law enforcement agency" could not disseminate to the public criminal history record information, regardless of whether that information had been expunged. 30. Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant Bucks County/BCCF was precluded from disseminating to the public criminal history record information, in 2007, Bucks County/BCCF created a website, that is accessible to the public, that disseminates the criminal history record information, including mug shots/booking photographs and arrest records, of individuals who have been incarcerated at BCCF after their arrest. 31. The public dissemination of criminal history record information by Bucks County/BCCF included individuals such as the Plaintiff, who had been arrested years before and had their charges either expunged or dismissed. 32. At the time of filing the original Complaint, Plaintiff's criminal record history information was still available and publicly accessible on the Bucks County Correctional Facility's website. 33. On December 23, 2011, Defendants, Unpublish LLC and CIA, obtained the Plaintiffs expunged criminal history record, including his mug shot and arrest record, from BCCF's website, and posted the information to their websites for public consumption without consent of the Plaintiff.

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 8 of 15
34. At the time of the posting on Unpublish LLC's and CIA's websites ofthe Plaintiffs criminal history record, more than thirteen (13) years had passed since the date of Plaintiffs arrest and incarceration in BCCF, the Plaintiff had never been convicted of any crime, and there were no criminal proceedings pending against the Plaintiff.
35. Notwithstanding the above, on December 23, 2011, the Defendant, Bucks County/BCCF caused by its conduct and its failure to comply with the requirements of the CHRIA the dissemination ofplaintiffs expunged criminal history record information, including the plaintiffs arrest and/or incarceration picture, to Defendants, Unpublish LLC and CIA, without extracting from the record all notations of arrest, indictments and/or other information relating to the initiation of criminal proceedings against the plaintiff, all of which were required to have been expunged pursuant to CHRIA.
36. Defendants, Unpublish LLC and CIA, are not criminal justice agencies but rather members of the public.
37. More specifically, Defendants, Unpublish LLC and CIA, are corporations which are in the business ofpublishing the criminal records of various individuals on their website and allowing internet users to comment on such photographs, in order to draw social media attention to the individual's photograph, earn advertising revenue from same, and extract a fee from the publicly disgraced individual in order to "unpublish" their information and have their photograph and arrest/criminal record removed from the websites.
38. Having unlawfully obtained the plaintiffs criminal history record information, the Defendants, Unpublish LLC and CIA, further disseminated t..l}e plaintiffs information on their websites, by posting the plaintiffs name, "mugshot," date of birth, and physical description, along with the plaintiffs date of confinement, date of release, county in which he was arrested, and a partial list of the charges arising from the plaintiffs arrest, none of which charges resulted in a conviction, and all of which

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 9 of 15
had been ordered to be expunged within thirty days of January 31, 2000. 39. As a direct and proximate result ofthe aforementioned acts and conduct of the
Defendants, jointly and/or severally, the plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, suffered damages including, but not limited to: damage to his reputation, anxiety, frustration, emotional distress, embarrassment, invasion of his right to privacy, and the deprivation of the benefit of his bargain in accepting the ARD plea agreement. 40. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendants, jointly and/or severally, the plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, has been obliged to and may continue to expend various sums of money and to incur various expenditures for legal counseling and representation. 41. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendants, jointly and/or severally, the plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, has and will hereinafter incur other financial expenses and losses. 42. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages, costs and attorney's fees.
COUNT I- 18 Pa.C.S. § 9121 and § 9183 WRONGFUL DISSEMINATION OF CRIMINAL
HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION DARYOUSH TAHA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. BUCKS COUNTY and BCCF 43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated herein by reference, as though fully set forth
at length. 44. As aforesaid, in 2007, notwithstanding the terms of 18 Pa. C. S. § 9121, which
precludes Bucks County/BCCF from disseminating criminal histor; record information to the public, Bucks County/BCCF created a website disseminating to the public the criminal history record information of those individuals who had been incarcerated at BCCF, including the Plaintiff, regardless of whether the

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 10 of 15
information had been expunged or the person had not been convicted of any crime.
45. On December 23, 2011, the Defendant, Bucks County/BCCF, disseminated or caused to be disseminated the Plaintiffs criminal history record information to the Defendants, Unpublish LLC and CIA, without extracting from the record all notations of arrest, indictments and/or other information relating to the initiation of criminal proceedings.
46. Specifically, Defendant Bucks County/BCCF disseminated the Plaintiffs prison "mugshot," date of arrest, date of release, and charges involved in the initiation of criminal proceedings, in violation of the CHRIA, 18 Pa.C.S. § 9121.
47. Defendants, Unpublish LLC and CIA, then disseminated the aforementioned information on their websites.
48. The dissemination of the Plaintiffs criminal record history information by Defendants Bucks County/BCCF violated the Plaintiffs rights under CHRIA.
49. The plaintiff has been aggrieved by the Defendants Bucks County's/BCCF's violation of the CHRIA, and continues to be aggrieved by said violation, as more fully described above.
50. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the Defendants, Bucks County's/BCCF's wrongful dissemination of his criminal history record information was willful, served no legitimate purpose, and done in direct violation of the terms of the CHRIA.
51. Defendants' willful violation ofthe CHRIA entitles the plaintiffto punitive damages. WHEREFORE, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Criminal History Records Information
Act 18 Pa.C.S. § 9183, et seq., the plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, demands judgment against the Defendants Bucks County and BCCF jointly and/or severally, for compensatory damages, statutory punitive damages, attorney's fees, and an injunction, ordering both Defendants to take down their websites.

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 11 of 15
COUNT II- 18 Pa.C.S. § 9183 WRONGFUL DISSEMINATION OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD
INFORMATION INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DARYOUSH TAHA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED V. BCCF AND BUCKS COUNTY 52. Paragraphs 1 through 51 are incorporated herein by reference, as though fully set forth at length.
53. The plaintiff has been aggrieved by the Defendants Bucks County's and BCCF's, violation of the CHRIA, and continues to be aggrieved by said violation, as more fully described above.
54. Plaintiffbelieves, and therefore avers, that the Defendants Bucks County's and BCCF's wrongful dissemination of his criminal history record information was willful, and was intentionally and maliciously undertaken to publicly shame the plaintiff.
55. Defendants Bucks County's and BCCF's willful violation of the CHRIA entitles the plaintiff to punitive damages.
56. The plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the damage from the Defendants Bucks County's and BCCF's violation of the CHRIA is ongoing, cannot be fully compensated through the award of monetary compensation alone, and will continue unless and until the Defendants are enjoined to remove the plaintiff's unlawfully acquired, retained and disseminated criminal history record information from their websites. WHEREFORE, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Criminal History Records Information
Act 18 Pa. C. S. § 9183 the plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an injunction against the Defendants BCCF and Bucks Cout1ty, directing the Defenda..'lts to remove the Plaintiffs' criminal records history information from their websites, and/or to take down their website and also awarding compensatory damages, statutory punitive damages, statutory attorney's fees, and all other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and applicable.

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 12 of 15
COUNT III FALSE LIGHTIINVASION OF PRIVACY DARYOUSH TAHA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED V. UNPUBLISH LLC AND CIA
57. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are incorporated herein by reference, as though fully set forth at length.
58. Defendants, Unpublish LLC's and CIA's, publication ofthe Plaintiff's mug shot and arrest record, and the mug shot and arrest records of other similarly situated Pennsylvania citizens, on their websites gave publicity to the Plaintiffs expunged arrest and falsely portrayed him as a convicted criminal, and was done for the purpose of extortion by shaming the Plaintiff and others similarly situated into paying the aforementioned Defendants to unpublish the information.
59. The false and/or misleading portrayal of the Plaintiff as a criminal was highly offensive to the Plaintiff, and those similarly situtated, and would have been highly offensive to a reasonable person.
60. Defendants, Unpublish LLC's and CIA's publication of the Plaintiffs mug shot and arrest record and portrayal ofthe Plaintiff as a criminal was done with reckless disregard for the fact that the Plaintiff had had his record expunged and had not been convicted of any crimes.
61. Defendant, Unpublish LLC's and CIA's publication of the Plaintiffs mug shot and arrest record created a false impression regarding the Plaintiffs criminal history and character and damaged his reputation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, , individually, and on behalf of all others

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 13 of 15
similarly situated, demands judgment against Unpublish LLC and CIA for compensatory damages, costs, and attorney's fees.
ABRAMSON & DENENBERG, P.C.
BY:_sf Alan Denenberg ALAN E. DENENBERG, ESQUIRE 1315 WALNUT ST., 12TH FLOOR PIDLADELPHIA,PA 19107 (215) 546-1345
SEEGER WEISS, LLP
BY:_sf Scott George SCOTT GEORGE, ESQUIRE 1515 MARKET ST., STE 1380 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 (215) 553-7982
BY: sf Jonathan Shub JONATHAN SHUB, ESQUIRE 1515 MARKET ST., STE 1380 PIDLADELPHIA, PA 19102 (215) 553-7980

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 14 of 15

BY: ALAN E. DENENBERG, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 54161 1315 WALNUT STREET, 12™ FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19107

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARYOUSH TAHA Plaintiff
v.
BUCKS COUNTY et al. Defendants

CIVIL ACTION 12-06867-TJS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Alan Denenberg, Esquire, hereby certify that on April 9, 2014, I served a true
and correct copy of Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint in the above captioned case via
the following methods:
Frank A. Chernak, Esquire (via ECF) BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
Jay Barry Harris, Esquire (via ECF) FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS Mellon Bank Center Suite 600 1735 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-7513
Joseph F. Centrich, Esquire (via ECF) Lance Winchester, Esquire CLAUSEN & CENTRICH 2002 Timberlock Pl, Suite 200 The Woodlands, TX 77380

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 72 Filed 04/09/14 Page 15 of 15

Northwest Registered Agent LLC (via Certified Mail and First Class Mail) 1030 N. Rocky Point Drive Suite 150A Tampa, FL 33607

Date: April9, 2014

_S/ Alan Denenberg,_ __ ALAN DENENBERG, ESQUIR

 
 .. ' Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 20

U){]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARYOUSH TAHA, Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.

BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and UNPUBLISH LLC,
Defendants.

NO. 12-6867

UNPUBLISH LLC Cross Defendant
BENSALEM TOWNSHIP Cross Claimant

v.

BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY RECORDS/ RECORDS CUSTODIAN EMPLOYEES JANE AND/OR JOHN DOE #1-6, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, FRANK NOONAN and WILLIAM F. PLANTIER
Cross Defendants

OPINION

This certified class action arises from Defendants Bucks County Correctional Facility and

Bucks County's decision in January 2011 to create an "Inmate Lookup Tool," (the "ILT")

I

through which they published on the internet information about 66,799 individuals who had beel

held or incarcerated over the course of decades at the Bucks County Correctional Facility. One

of the individuals whose information was published, Plaintiff, Daryoush Taha, filed this lawsuit

on behalf of himself and all persons whose criminal history record information was made

available on the ILT. lie claimed that by publishing this information, Defendants Bucks County

Correctional Facility and Bucks County violated Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record

1

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 20
Information Act ("the CHRIA"), 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9101 et seq., in particular contravening the portion of the law that prohibits dissemination of"criminal history record information" except in defined circumstances, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9121 (b)(2). Pending now are cross motions for summary judgment. Defendants maintain that punitive damages are not available to the class-or at the very least that such damages should be capped. Plaintiff argues that Defendants' violation of the CHRIA was willful, and therefore that punitive damages are proper. 1 For the following reasons both motions will both be denied. I. Background
The facts in this case, which are largely undisputed, have already been recounted at length. See Taha v. Bucks County, 2016 WL 2345998 (E.D. Pa. May 4, 2016) ("Taha II"). The short story is that in September of 1998, Plaintiff Taha was arrested by the Bensalem Police
Id. Department and transported to the Bucks County Correctional Facility. at *1. He was
\
charged with harassment, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest; his photo was taken; and he was released the following day. Id Eventually, the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County ordered the Clerk of Courts of Bucks County, the Bucks County District Attorney, the district
court, and the arresting agency to expunge Plaintiffs "arrest and other criminal records." Id. .
I
In January of 2011, Defendants launched the ILT-a publicly accessible and searchable / electronic database that included information about "individuals who had been held or incarcerated at the Bucks County Correctional Facility from 1938 onward, a total of66,799 people." Taha v. County ofBucks, 862 F.3d 292,297 (3d Cir. 2017) ("Taha III"). While the parties contest the sufficiency of Defendants' preparation, due diligence, and legal research prior to publishing the ILT, they largely agree on the steps that Defendants did and did not take.
1 BecauJe Defendants also argue the willfulness issue in their motion-simply urging the opposite conclusion-Pla tiffs motion will be discussed in tandem with Defendants' argument as to willfulness.
2

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 3 of 20
Defendants' employees reviewed at least one other county's ILT, discussed the ILT at a meeting of criminal justice professionals, and asked the state police whether certain information should be included in the ILT. They were also repeatedly trained on the protections the CHRIA requires for criminal history record information and on the types of information that qualify as criminal history record information; were aware of the Pennsylvania Attorney General's "Handbook"according to Defendants, "an authoritative document that you would be reasonable to rely on if you're trying to understand the [CHRIA],"-which defined criminal history record information as the types of information made public by the ILT; had access to a hotline run through Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance Network that they could call if "there's any doubt as to the propriety" of information to be released, but did not make use of this resource; and proceeded without seeking advice from the Bucks County Solicitor before releasing the information.
Ultimately, the information that Defendants made public about the various class members included "name, race, weight, hair and eye color, arrest dates, arrest charges, and where availabli. the marital status and the FBI and State fingerprint identification numbers." In addition, the IL) included booking photographs for about 47,000 class members. As to Taha himself, the following information became publicly accessible: "a color photograph of Taha from the shoulders up, wearing a blue shirt and pictured against a gray background; sex; date of birth; height; weight; race; hair color; eye color; citizenship; incarceration location; date committed to incarceration; release date; case number for the crime charged; and 'DC, HARASS' listed under
'Charge Information.'" Taha II, 2016 WL 2345998, at *1.
Plaintiff sued on December 7, 2012. In the course of resolving various motions, the Court has determined that Defendants violated the CHRIA by disseminating "criminal history
3

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 4 of 20
record information," 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9102 (defining the term), in a manner prohibited by the Act, Taha v. Bucks County, 172 F. Supp.3d 867, 872 (E.D. Pa. 2016) ("Taha I"), and has also certified a class of "all persons whose criminal history record information was made available on the ... Inmate Lookup Tool," Taha v. Bucks County, 2016 WL 2346000 (E.D. Pa. May 4, 2016) (order); see also Taha /1, 2016 WL 2345998, at *4 (opinion). The Third Circuit affirmed the class certification decision, noting that "the only remaining factual issue is whether defendants willfully violated CHRIA," Taha Ill, 862 F.3d at 309, because in order to obtain punitive damages a plaintiff must show that any violation of the CHRIA was willful, see 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9183(b)(2). II. Legal Standard
Summary judgment must be granted if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Radich v. Goode, 886 F.2d 1391, 1395 (3d Cir. 1989). Materiality of facts is determined by
' reference to the substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,248 (1986). A/ genuine dispute "exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for thb
I
f
non-moving party." U.S. ex rel. Greenfield v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 880 FJd 89, 93 (3d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[A]11 reasonable inferences" must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor. Burton v. Teleflex Inc., 707 F.3d 417,425 (3d Cir. 2013).
When interpreting Pennsylvania statutes, such as the CHRIA, this Court must follow the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 842 F.3d 247, 253-54 (3d Cir. 2016). If the law is unclear and there is no controlling precedent issued by Pennsylvania's highest court, this Court must "predict" how it would rule, giving "due regard, but not conclusive effect, to the drcisional law oflower state courts." Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. V. Buffetta, 230
4

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 5 of 20

F.3d 634, 637 (3d Cir. 2000). III. Discussion
A. Statute of Limitations Defendants assert that either a one- or two-year statute of limitations applies to the CHRIA, and therefore Taha's claims must be barred because the Amended Complaint was filed on February 26, 2013-more than two years after Defendants' ILT uploaded Taha's criminal history record information onto the internet. This argument is unavailing both because it is waived and because the applicable statute of limitations is six years.
i. Defendants have Waived the Statute of Limitations Affirmative Defense While Defendants did include a statute of limitations defense in their answer, they eschewed multiple opportunities-motions to dismiss, arguments for and against summary judgment, and in response to Plaintiff's class certification briefing-to raise the defense with the Court. Instead, they waited more than six years to do so-after the Court had determined that they were liable for CHRIA violations, after it had certified the class, and after class members had been notified of the Court's decision on liability.2 Concerned by the delay, the Court ordered briefing on whether Defendants' tardiness in raising the argument warranted a conclusion that they had waived the defense, and now decides that it does. The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c), which "must be raised as early as practicable." Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 137 (3d Cir. 2002). Generally, "the failure to raise an affirmative defense in opposition to a motion for summary

2 Defendants argue that because the parties stipulated that each could file a second motion for summary

judgment, the statute of limitations argument is not waived. This conclusion does not follow in this instance:

whether Plaintiff~ agreed that Defendants could file a second motion does not bear on whether any particular

j

l argument asserted in that second motion would be proper. Absent any specific reference in the stipulation
anticipating that pefendants would argue the statute of limitations in their second summary judgment motion, the

question ofwaivlr turns on an analysis oflegal precedent rather than the parties' intentions.

;

5

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 6 of 20
judgment constitutes an abandonment of the defense." United Mine Workers ofAm. 1974 Pension v. Pittston Co., 984 F.2d 469,478 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also Yanoski v. Silgan White Cap Ams., LLC, 179 F. Supp.3d 413,426 (W.D. Pa. 2016) (''It is well-established that a party's failure to argue an issue on summary judgment constitutes a waiver of that issue."). Where "the party raising the defense did not do so at a 'pragmatically sufficient time[,]'" and where allowing the defense would "prejudice" the opposing party and undermine 'judicial economy," it is appropriate to conclude that the defense has been waived. In re Frescati Shipping Co., 886 F.3d 291,313 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Charpentier v. Godsil, 937 F.2d 859,864 (3d Cir. 1991)); Robinson, 313 F.3d at 137. All these concerns are present here.
Defendants did not present the issue within a "pragmatically sufficient time."3 There were many points during the years of this litigation at which Defendants could have raised it in motion practice, but they failed to do so. See Fortney v. Tennekoon, 1998 WL 159047, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 1998) (refusing to allow defendants to "revisit the issue of liability" at a bench trial on damages because "[a]lthough the opportunity was available to them at the time, the defendants did not adequately raise th[e] argument or present its supporting evidence either in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment or in their own cross-motion").
The failure is not without consequence. On March 28, 2016, the Court entered an Opinion and Order on liability, finding that Defendants' public dissemination of the criminal record history of approximately 67,000 individuals violated the CHRIA. Accordingly, it granted Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability, Taha I, 172 F. Supp.3d at 872, andl
I
subsequently certified a class, Taha II, 2016 WL 2345998, at *1. Thus, the only remaining issue
3 Defendants argue that the issue is preserved because they raised it in their answer. True enough, but raising an issue in an answer does not preserve the issue indefinitely-it still must be argued at a "pragmatically sufficient time," !}lld within a timeframe that does not cause Plaintiff"prejudice." See Robtnson, 313 F.3d at 136 ("We have ... fo~d a limitations defense to be waived where it was pleaded in the answer, but where it was not pursued before trial.").
6
!

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 7 of 20
was whether Defendants had been "willful" in their violation of the Act. See Taha II, 2016 WL
2345998, at *1 (ruling that class certification was appropriate because the sole remaining issue after the liability adjudication was whether Bucks could be subject to statutory damages for a
willful violation under the CHRIA); Taha III, 862 F.3d at 309 ("At this stage of the proceedings
in this case, the only remaining factual issue is whether defendants willfully violated CHRIA"). Having won on liability, Plaintiff sought, and the Court allowed, additional time for
discovery on the issue of "willfulness." And, upon the Third Circuit affirming this Court's ruling on class certification, the Court approved a notice to class members that explained that the Court had concluded that Defendants were liable for a violation of the CHRIA, that it had dismissed Plaintiff's claims for actual and real damages, and that the issue of whether an award of punitive damages was yet to be decided.
In short, the Plaintiffs have already made, over the course of years, considerable progress in this litigation-progress that would be reversed if Defendants had their druthers. In effect, a ruling that Plaintiff's CHRIA claims are barred by the statute of limitations would subvert this Court's decision that Defendants are liable under the CHRIA and evert the expectations of class members who have been informed of that decision in the class notice. As such, allowing Defendants to assert the statute of limitations argument would work prejudice on the class.
Certainly, judicial economy would not be served by allowing Defendants to assert the statute of limitations at this late stage in the proceedings. Defendants' failure to raise the issue earlier resulted in the Court ruling on the question of liability without benefit of any argument oi whether Plaintiff was barred by the statute of limitations. Because a successful limitations defense would mean Defendants win on liability as well as on punitive damages, allowing Defendants to raise the issue now would require Plaintiff to relitigate a question-liability-that
l
!
7

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 8 of 20

has long-since been decided, and would require the Court to "re-decide the motion based on
arguments that could have been made earlier but were not," Milwaukee Ctr. for Indep., Inc. v. Milwaukee Health Care, LLC, 2018 WL 2862840, at *3 (E.D. Wisc. June 11, 2018)-thus both
causing prejudice and undermining judicial economy.4

Therefore, Defendants waived the statute of limitations defense.

ii. Plaintiff's Claims are Not Barred by the Statute of Limitations

Even if the statute of limitations defense were not waived, the statute of limitations does

not bar Plaintiffs claims.

The CHRIA contains no explicit statute oflimitations. 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9183(b).

Therefore, to determine the applicable limitations period, the Court must consider generally

applicable statutes of limitations for Pennsylvania civil actions. The parties point to three

potential limitations periods: One year for "[a]n action for libel, slander or invasion of privacy," 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5523(1); two years for a variety of specific torts and "[a]ny other action ... to J

recover damages for injury ... which is founded on negligent, intentional, or otherwise tortious , conduct," id. § 5524(7); and six years for "[a]ny civil action ... which is neither subject to another limitation ... nor excluded from the application of a period of limitation," id. § 5527(b).

The six-year statute of limitations applies. The one-year statute of limitations is clearly ,

inapplicable, and as between the remaining options of the two- and six-year statutes of

limitations, persuasive case law in Pennsylvania leads to the conclusion that the six-year statute

of limitation is the better fit with the CHRIA. Because Plaintiff brought his claim on Decembert
l
'

4 Defendants also argue that Plaintiff himself waived the argument that Defendants waived the statute of ,

limitations defense. These argument ignores that the Court can, and did in this case, raise the issue sua sponte. See

Harper v Del. Valley Broadcasters, Inc, 743 F. Supp. 1076, 1090 (D. Del. 1990), Youngblood Grp. v. Lufkin Fed.

Sav. & Loan Ass 'n, 932 F. Supp. 859, 876 (E.D. Tex. 1996); cf United States v. Gimbel, 782 F.2d 89, 91 n.5 (7th,

Cir. 1986) ("[l)t \S beyond cavil that" federal circuit courts may "raise the issue of waiver sua sponte[.)").

'

8

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 9 of 20
7, 2012-well within the six-year period-Plaintiffs claims are not barred. a. One-Year Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply
The Pennsylvania one-year statute of limitations for "libel, slander or invasion of privacy" actions does not govern here. Defendants have been found liable under Section 9121 of the CHRIA, which prohibits dissemination of certain criminal history record information to "an individual or non-criminal justice agency." Taha/, 172 F. Supp.3d at 870. This is neither a cause of action for libel, nor for slander, nor for invasion of privacy. Indeed, there is almost no overlap between the elements of the cause of action that is arguably most similar, invasion of privacy, and the elements Plaintiff established to prove a violation of the CHRIA. Compare Pro GolfMfg., Inc. v. Tribune Rev. Newspaper Co., 570 A.2d 254, 248 (Pa. 2002) (noting that invasion of privacy requires (1) "an intentional intrusion on the seclusion of[a plaintiffs] private concerns which was substantial and highly offensive to a reasonable person" that would have (2) "caused mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities") with 18 Pa.
l C.S.A. § 912l(b)(2) (defining violation of the CHRIA to entail the dissemination of criminal
history record information to individuals or noncriminal justice agencies without having excise, "all notations of arrests, indictments or other information relating to the initiation of criminal proceedings where: [1] three years have elapsed from the date of arrest; [2] no conviction has occurred; and [3] no proceedings are pending seeking a conviction").
Defendants' argument to the contrary elides the difference between a cause of action and a type of harm. Just because a violation of a law implicates privacy interests does not transform the violation into an invasion of privacy tort and subject it to a one-year statute of limitations. See Burger v. Blair Med. Assocs., Inc., 928 A.2d 246,251 (Pa. Super. 2007) (refusing to find "the tort ofbrJach of physician-patient confidentiality" as governed by the one-year statute of
I
9

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 10 of 20
limitations); Boettger v. Miklich, 599 A.2d 713, 716-17 (Pa. Commw. 1991), rev 'don other grounds, 633 A.2d 1146 (Pa. 1993) (refusing to find a violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping
and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5725, to be covered by the one-year statute of limitations because it "is a distinct cause of action" from Pennsylvania invasion of privacy).
b. The Six-Year Statute of Limitations Applies With the inapt one-year statute of limitations eliminated, two options remain: the six-year statute of limitations for "[a]ny civil action ... which is neither subject to another limitation ... nor excluded from the application of a period oflimitation," 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5527(b), and the two-year statute oflimitations, for various specific torts and "[a]ny other action ... to recover damages for injury ... which is founded on negligent, intentional, or otherwise tortious conduct," id. § 5524(7). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not appear to have offered an analytical framework for addressing situations, as here, where two separate catchall statute of limitations , provisions might each plausibly be implicated. However, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in Gabriel v. 0 'Hara, 534 A.2d 488 (Pa. Super. 1987), provided a broadly applicable and wellreasoned analysis that is regularly cited by Pennsylvania courts. In that case, the Superior Court held that the six-year period applied to Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), largely because it concluded that the UTPCPL is "sui generis," that is, "[o]f its own kind or class," Black's Law Dictionary 1662 (10th ed. 2014). Gabriel, 534
I
A.2d at 494. The Gabriel court explained that the UTPCPL "encompasses an array of [causes 1f action] that might be analogized to passing off, misappropriation, trademark infringement, disparagement false advertising, fraud, breach of contract, and breach of warranty." Id.
l
10

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 11 of 20
(footnotes omitted). To determine th~ appropriate statute of limitations, the court declined to simply apply "the most closely analogous limitations period" for any given cause of action, recognizing that this approach would "yield[] inconsistent determinations." Id. As a practical illustration of the potential inconsistency, Gabriel compared the trial court's ruling-that "[a]n action pursuant to the UTPCPL must necessarily sound in fraud or deceit" and therefore is subject to the two-year statute oflimitations, id. at 493 (alterations omitted)-with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's interpretation of the UTPCPL in a different case-that the cause of action there was "essentially a claim for libel" and therefore subject to the one-year statute of limitations, id. at 493-94 (quoting Merv Swing Agency, Inc. v. Graham Co., 579 F. Supp. 429, 430 (E.D. Pa. 1983)) (alterations omitted). To avoid such "uncertainty and inconsistency,'' the Superior Court in Gabriel held that the "uniform six-year statute of limitations" to such sui generis statutes, including all claims arising under the UTPCPL. Id. at 494.
Plaintiff argues the same reasoning applies to the Cl IRIA because application of a uniform six-year period is the only way to avoid "uncertainty and confusion." And indeed, the concerns motivating the Gabriel court apply to the CHRIA as well. Like the UTPCPL, the CHRIA both lacks an explicit statute of limitations and "encompasses an array of practices," Gabriel, 534 A.2d at 494, that sound in various areas of law. The CHRIA provides, for example, that criminal history record information shall be disseminated "to any individual or noncriminal justice agency only upon request," 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 912l(b), that criminal history record information "shall be expunged" under a variety of circumstances, id. § 9122(a), that state licensing agencies "shall not" consider certain criminal history record information when determining eligibility for professional licenses and certifications, id. § 9124(a), (b), that private employers ma){ only consider criminal history record information in certain circumstances, id.
i
11

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 12 of 20

§ 9125, that criminal justice agencies "shall ensure the confidentiality and security of criminal history record information" through several specified procedures, id. § 9131, and more.

Thus, both the UTPCPL and the CHRIA are statutes under which "multifarious claims"

may be brought. Gabriel, 534 A.2d at 495. These heterogenous claims can be analogized to

various Pennsylvania common law causes of action (or have no common law analog at all)-and

Defendants' assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, not all of which necessarily sound in tort.

As with the UTPCPL, applying a statute of limitations other than the 6-year catchall to the

CHRIA would cause plaintiffs "uncertainty" as to "which limitations period governed their ...

claim until the court determined whether their claim more closely resembled a tort action, a

contract action, or an action under some other statute." Id. at 494. And plaintiffs would face

"inconsistency" to the extent that courts analogize the various violations of the Cl IRIA to different common law causes of action. Id. 5

For the reasons set forth above, this Court predicts that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

would hold that the six-year statute of limitations applies to violations of the CHRIA and applies

that time period here.

B. Punitive Damages Against Government Agencies

In the course of this lawsuit, both the Third Circuit and this Court-twice-have held

that the CHRIA abrogates sovereign immunity such that state agencies may be held liable for

punitive damages under the statute. Taha Ill, 862 F.3d at 305-08; Taha v. Bucks County, 2014

WL 695205, at *4-8 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2014); Taha I, 172 F. Supp.3d at 873. Defendants seek to

I
5 In fact, Defendants litigation position serves as a proof of concept. Defendants argued that the one-year

statute of limitations applies because Plaintiff's claun under the CHRIA is comparable to defamation and invasion.

of privacy claims, and then in the very same brief went on to argue that the two-year statute of limitations is propet

because "CHRIA is a statutorily-created tort action" that caused Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress. That

j

Defendants can purport to make plausible arguments for both statutes of limitations only underscores the degree to

which ex ante pla,intiffs would be required to guess as to the applicable limitations period.

/

j

I

12

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 13 of 20
revisit these rulings-and have the Court find that the CHRIA does not authorize punitive damages against government agencies-in light of Doe v. Franklin County, 174 A.3d 593 (Pa. 2017), an intervening Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that held that the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6111 (i), "did not specifically and intentionally abrogate high public official immunity[.]" Franklin County, 174 A.3d at 608. Defendants claim that Franklin County reflects a newly elevated standard for how "explicitly" the Pennsylvania General Assembly must abrogate immunity, and that the Third Circuit held in Taha Ill that immunity had only been "implicitly" abrogated. Franklin County does not change the analysis here, both because it does not change the applicable law and because-contrary to Defendants' assertion-the Third Circuit already held that the CHRIA "explicitly" abrogates immunity.
In Franklin County, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that abrogation of sovereign immunity must be "expressly stated," id. at 608 (citing Zaeflik v. Pennsbury Sch Dist-f 72 A.3d 773, 797 (Pa. Commw. 2013)), and that it "ha[d] consistently held that where the General Assembly intends to provide exceptions to immunity, such exceptions must be specifically and explicitly expressed." Id. at 605 (citing Zaujlik v. Pennsbury Sch. Dist., 104 A.3d 1096, 1127 (Pa. 2014)). This is the same standard that has been in effect since the beginning of this litigation, and the same standard that the Third Circuit applied in affirming this Court's conclusion that sovereign immunity had been abrogated. Indeed, the Third Circuit directly rejected the argument that the CHRIA did not expressly abrogate sovereign immunity: "[Defendants] argue that the penalties provision does not expressly allow punitive damages to bf imposed on a government agency. We disagree." Taha III, 862 F.3d at 306 (emphasis added). ·
C. Willful Violation Section 9183 of the CHRIA provides for punitive damages where a violation was
13

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 14 of 20

"willful." 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9183. Defendants contend that punitive damages are unavailable

because their conduct was not willful. The parties spar over both the definition of "willful" in

the context of the CIIRIA, and whether that definition encompasses Defendants' conduct.

i. Standard for Willfulness

To date, no court has set a standard for what rises to the level of a "willful" violation as

used in Section 9183 of the CHRIA. In the absence of controlling authority, Plaintiff argues that

it should be defined as amounting essentially to "reckless indifference," whereas Defendants

argue it should be defined as requiring that they "actually knew their conduct was illegal."

Plaintiff contends that willfulness in the context of the CIIRIA amounts to "reckless

indifference" because that is the definition for willfulness at common law, see, e.g., Brand Mktg.

Grp. LLC v. Intertek Testing Servs., N.A., Inc., 801 F.3d 347, 361-62 (3d Cir. 2015) (applying

Pennsylvania law); Hutchison v. Luddy, 870 A.2d 766, 770-71 (Pa. 2005), and unless a statute

states otherwise, "[s]tatutes are never presumed to make any innovation in the rules and

principles of the common law or prior existing law beyond what is expressly declared in their

provisions," In re Trust Under Deed ofDavid P. Kulig Dated Jan. 12, 2001, 175 A.3d 222, 231

(Pa. 201 7) (quoting Rahn v. Hess, 106 A.2d 461 (Pa. 1954)). Plaintiff also observes that

Pennsylvania statutes that do define "willfulness" frequently do so in terms of "reckless

indifference" or "reckless disregard." See, e.g., 12 Pa. C.S.A. § 5302; 43 Pa. C.S.A. § 167.6.

Thus, he argues that the baseline presumption for punitive damages is the common law rule of

reckless disregard, and that including the word "willful" in the text of CIIRIA does nothing to

overcome that presumption because that word is frequently used to mean "recklessness."

Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the presumption that "willful" means

I
I

"reckless disr gard" is defeated by the CHRIA's relationship to another statute: Pennsylvania's!

14

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 15 of 20

Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (the "Tort Claims Act"), 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8541 et seq. Defendants argue that the CHRIA and the Tort Claims Act are in pari materia-or, "upon the same matter or subject"-and as a result must be construed together as one law. Thus, according to Defendants, because "willfulness" under the Tort Claims Act requires "a showing of intention to do what is known to be wrong," In re City ofPhi/a. Litig., 158 F.3d 723, 728 (3d Cir. 1998), to interpret the two statutes consistently this Court must apply that same elevated standard for willfulness to the CHRIA.
In support of this theory, Defendants primarily point to Kilgore v. City ofPhiladelphia, 717 A.2d 514 (Pa. 1998), a case in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared that "[s]tatutes dealing with governmental and sovereign immunity are to be interpreted consistently, as they deal with indistinguishable subject matter." Id. at 516 n.2. Defendants then observe that
j
the Tort Claims Act ''legislatively raises the shield of governmental immunity against any damages ... caused by any act of a local agency or employee ... except as otherwise provided,·'.·
I
Mascaro v. Youth Study Ctr., 523 A.2d 1118, 1120 (Pa. 1987), and that the CHRIA, too, deals with governmental immunity insofar as it allows for suit against local agencies. According to Defendants, therefore, Kilgore requires that "willfulness" in the CHRIA be interpreted consistently with "willfulness" in the Tort Claims Act, i.e., defined as "a showing of intention to do what is known to be wrong."
This Court predicts that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would conclude that the CHRIA and the Tort Claims Act are not in pari materia, and therefore would define "willful" in the CHRIA as requiring a showing of reckless disregard or indifference. 6 The problem with

6 Even if the statutes were in pari materia, Defendants proposed definition of what "willfulness" entails

under the Tort C\aims Act is incorrect. The "intention to do what is known to be wrong" or "intending to commit ·an

intentional tort" tandard derives from Renk v. City ofPittsburgh, 641 A.2d 289 (Pa. 1994), and generally applies

only to police · conduct cases. Otherwise, for conduct to be "willful" under the Tort Claims Act, the

I

15

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 16 of 20

Defendants' argument is that Kilgore does not stand for the broad proposition that any statute
touching upon governmental or sovereign immunity is in pari materia with all other statutes that
touch upon governmental or sovereign immunity. Instead, Kilgore stands only for the
proposition that the Tort Claims Act is in pari materia with one specific statute: the
Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8521 et seq. There are many reasons to
read it as such, specifically:
• The only statutes that Kilgore affirmatively addressed were the Tort Claims Act and the Sovereign Immunity Act.
• The cases on which Kilgore relied each hold specifically that the Tort Claims Act and the Sovereign Immunity Act are to be interpreted consistent with one another-not that all statutes that touch on governmental immunity of any type must be interpreted in pari materia. See Finn v. City ofPhiladelphia, 664 A.2d 1342, 1344 (Pa. 1995); Kiley by Kiley v. City ofPhiladelphia, 645 A.2d 184, 186 (Pa. 1994); Crowell v. City ofPhiladelphia, 613 A.2d 1178, 1183 n.8 (Pa. 1992).
i • The cases relied on by Kilgore each post-date enactment of the CHRIA, but several of them
refer to "the two statutes dealing with immunities," which they explain are the Tort Claims · Act and the Sovereign Immunity Act. The cases make no mention of the CURIA. See Finn, 645 A.2d at 1144; Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1183 n.8. The exclusion of the CURIA from these statements suggests that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not view the CHRIA as "dealing with immunities," at least for purposes of the in pari materia canon of construction
l
i
• While the Tort Claims Act and the Sovereign Immunity Act are nearly structurally identical; the CURIA is distinct The Tort Claims Act and Sovereign Immunity Act each state as a general rule that there will be no waiver of immunity (the Tort Claims Act for local agencies and the Sovereign Immunity Act for the Commonwealth), see 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8541; 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8521, and then lay out a set of exceptions to that general rule, see 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8542; 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8522. Indeed, many of the exceptions are substantively identical. On the other hand, the CHRIA functions entirely differently, laying out rules for the collection and dissemination of criminal history information, and defining damages recoverable from governmental agencies that violate the rules. In other words, the CURIA does not deal in "indistinguishable subject matter." Kilgore, 717 A.2d at 516 n.2.

governmental employee merely must "desire to bring about the result that followed his conduct or be aware that it

was substantially certain to follow." Kuzel v Krause, 658 A.2d 856, 859 (Pa. Commw, 1995); see also Evans v.

Phi/a Transp Co., 212 A.2d 440, 443 (Pa. 1965), As Renk and other subsequent opinions have explained, a

heightened stand<\l"d for the police 1s necessary because otherwise police could be found to have committed

I

intentional torts S\illPly by effectuating arrests. See Renk, 641 A.2d at 293; Brummell v. City ofIfarrisburg, 20 l 0

WL 3896382, at "13-4 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2010). Outside of police misconduct cases, however, the heightened

standard does not\tpply.

16

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 17 of 20

• Because the CHRIA is far from the only Pennsylvania statute "dealing with governmental and sovereign immunity" by contemplating monetary redress against government entities, see, e.g., 44 Pa. C.S.A. § 2333, 62 Pa. C.S.A. § 3935, application of Defendants' proposed interpretation of Kilgore would reach significantly further than the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appeared to have intended.7
In sum, there is nothing to suggest that the Kilgore court had the CHRIA in mind, nor
anything to suggest that the doctrine of in pari materia should nevertheless apply. For the
reasons set forth supra, the Court predicts that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would define
"willful" in the CHRIA to mean "realized the risk and acted in conscious disregard or
indifference to it," or "reckless disregard," and applies that standard here. ii. Application
Whether or not the Defendants' conduct in this instance was "willful" is a question of
fact and, thus, a jury question unless "there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a
reasonable jury to find for" the non-moving party. Souryavong v. Lackawanna County, 872 F.3d
122, 126 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the parties largely agree on t~e
I
facts, but interpret them differently to support their respective positions on the question of
willfulness under the CHRIA. As a reasonable jury could answer that question either way, the
Court must deny summary judgment to both parties on that issue.
D. Single Violation Versus Multiple Violations

7 Although Defendants do not point to these cases, it is worth noting that in a few instances Pennsylvania

courts do apply the in pari materia canon of construction between the Sovereign Immunity Act and some other

statute that merely allows for monetary redress against state actors. See Goryeb v. Com Dep 't ofPub Welfare, 575

A.2d 545, 548 (Pa. 1990); Ithier v. City ofPhiladelph1a, 585 A.2d 564, 566 (Pa. Commw. 1991). However, as ; compared with Defendants' proposed application of the principle, the Pennsylvania courts in those cases take a ,

notably narrower approach by only holding that specific, consistent with one another. So, for example, in Goryeb

overlapping sections of each act needed to be the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reconciled a

construed provision

o1f

the Mental Healt·h· Procedures Act that allowed for liability of persons involved in certain medical decisions, 50 P1 Stat. Ann.§ 7114, with a specific exception to sovereign immunity for "health care employees of Commonwealth
19 [actors]" found the Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8522(b)(2). Such reconciliation of the two

overlapping statqtes is a far stretch from Defendants' claim that all words in the Tort Claims Act and all words in 11

statutes that allow for damages against government actors must be construed in pari materia.

17

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 18 of 20

j
The CHRIA provides that ''[e]xemplary and punitive damages of not less than $1,000 nor

more than $10,000 shall be imposed for any violation ... found to be willful." 42 Pa. C.S.A.

§ 9183(b)(2). The parties dispute the meaning of the word "violation." Defendants contend that

even though they violated the statute, they only violated it once-when the ILT first was

published-and therefore punitive damages must be capped at $10,000. Plaintiff, on the other

hand, contends that each release of criminal history record information-that is, the releases as to

each of the 66,799 class members-constituted a violation of the statute.

Defendants' argument relies on a key assumption: that a "violation" is synonymous with

an "act." Thus, because they only implemented the ILT once, there was only one violation of the

CHRIA. But this assumption is mistaken. Comparison to traditional torts illustrates the point. If

a tortfeasor breaks into a single computer, obtains private information relating to five different

people, and publishes that information, the tortfeasor has violated five different peoples' rights )
l
and could give rise to five different causes of action, despite only engaging in one act. Plaintiff.

offers a similarly apt analogy: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act allows recovery of $50J

for "each" violation of the statute, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), which includes certain uses of

l

I "automatic telephone dialing system[s]," id § 227(b)(l)(A). Although an autodialer can "dial

l numbers without human intervention," and some can make thousands of calls at once, ACA Int'{

v. F.C.C., 885 F.3d 687,694 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); Blow v. Bijora,
r Inc., 855 F.3d 793, 802 (7th Cir. 2017), recovery of $500 per call is allowed, see, e.g., Daubert

NRA Grp., LLC, 861 F.3d 382,388 (3d Cir. 2017). Although each individual call does not

require an act, each call nevertheless constitutes a violation of the statute.

Defendants argue that rejecting their definition would require the imposition of
! '
unreasonable ~tatutory damages-at a minimum, a figure of about $67 million, but theoreticall
I

18

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 19 of 20
as much as about $670 million-which would contravene the intent of Pennsylvania's General Assembly. At a superficial level, Defendants may be right: In Pennsylvania, it is presumed "[t]hat the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable," 1 Pa. C.S.A. § 1922, and minimum punitive damages of $67 million could conceivably fit that bill. Nevertheless, in Section 9183(b)(2) the General Assembly clearly expressed its purpose of imposing punitive damages on a per-violation basis. Regardless of how the provision plays out in litigation, it is not within the purview of this Court to circumvent the legislature's clearly expressed language.8
Neither do the cases cited by Defendants support their position. In United States v. Gregg, 226 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit addressed a statute that prohibited the obstruction of access to reproductive health clinics and provided for "an award of statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation." Id at 258 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 248(c)(l)(B)). The question in Gregg was whether the statutory damages per violation were to be imposed separately as to each defendant, such that each defendant would be assessed damages of $5,000 per violation-not whether multiple violations had occurred. The Gregg panel simply did not address the question that is presented here. In Appalachian Insurance Co. v. liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 676 F.2d 56 (3d Cir. 1982), the Third Circuit interpreted the word "occurrence" in the context of insurance law. The panel explained-again, in the insurance context-"an occurrence is determined by the cause or causes of the resulting injury" and a court must ask "if there was but one proximate, uninterrupted, and continuing cause which resulted in all of the injuries and damages." Id. at 60 (quoting Bartholomew v. Ins. Co. ofN. Am., 502 F. Supp. 246,
I • More~v,,., fuere has been no fmding of "absurd" liability in fuis case, and if ajury ultimately does re a
verdict along tho e lines, Defendants will no doubt take the opportunity to argue against imposition of that verd~ Cf BMW ofN. . Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 568 (1996) (holding that "grossly excessive" punitive damages m y violate due proc ss).
19

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 267 Filed 02/14/19 Page 20 of 20

251 (D.R.I. 1980)). This Court declines Defendants' invitation to import the insurance-specific

definition of the word "occurrence," and apply it to the word "violation" in the CHRIA. Finally,

in Tomasello v. Rubin, 167 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 1999), the Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia addressed a violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, which examined whether

damages arising out of sending a letter to 4,500 separate people could be assessed on a per-letter

basis. 167 F.3d at 617. The analogy between Tomasello and this case fails because Plaintiffs

claim does not turn on the number of people to whom private information was impermissibly

sent, but rather on the number of class members whose information was published.

E. Damages Cap

Finally, Defendants argue that any punitive damages under the CHRIA must be capped at

$500,000 under the Tort Claims Act. See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8553(b). The only reason Defendant/

offer for applying the damages cap from an entirely different statute to the CHRIA is based on ·

l policy concerns about the potential scope of liability. But, real though those concerns may be,

that is not a reason to arbitrarily import an unrelated damages cap from a separate statute.

l

Moreover, doing so would directly contravene the Tort Claims Act itself, which specifically

limits the damage cap to "[a]ctions for which damages are limited by reference to this

subchapter," id (emphasis added), yet the CHRIA makes no reference to the Tort Claims Act.

For the foregoing reasons, both parties' motions for summary judgment will be denied.

An appropriate order follows.

February 14, 2019

WENDY BEETLESTONE, J. 20

 
 Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARYOUSH TAHA

:

Individually and on Behalf of

:

All Others Similarly Situated

:

:

v.

:

:

BUCKS COUNTY, et al.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-6867

L. Felipe Restrepo, J.

MEMORANDUM

February 21, 2014

Daryoush Taha brings this putative class action suit against Bucks County and the Bucks

County Correctional Facility (collectively “the County defendants”), along with the companies

that operate the websites mugshots.com, mugshotsonline.com and bustedmugshots.com. Taha

alleges that the defendants published his expunged arrest record in violation of Pennsylvania’s

Criminal History Record Information Act (“CHRIA”), 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9101 et seq. He further

alleges that the corporate defendants have violated 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8316, which prohibits the

unauthorized use of a name or likeness, and have committed the invasion-of-privacy tort of

“false light.”

The County defendants have moved to dismiss Taha’s claims against them pursuant to Rule

12(b)(1) and (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They argue that governmental

immunity bars Taha’s claim for damages under the CHRIA, and that his claim for injunctive

relief must be dismissed because he has not shown a sufficient risk of future harm. For the

reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.

1

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 16
I. BACKGROUND The alleged facts relevant to this motion are straightforward. Taha was arrested in 1998 by
the Bensalem police, booked into custody, and transferred to the Bucks County Correctional Facility (“BCCF”). Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), ECF Doc. 33, ¶¶ 20-21. In the course of that process the police and BCCF created a file that included information about Taha and his arrest, along with his photograph. See id. ¶¶ 20-22. While Taha “strongly believed himself to be innocent of all charges,” he accepted and completed an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (“ARD”) “in order to secure the automatic expungement of all charges and avoid the damage to his reputation and career prospects that would arise from having a criminal record.” Id. ¶¶ 23-24. In 2000, after Taha completed the ARD program, the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas entered an expungement order. Id.
In 2007, according to the allegations, the County defendants created a public website that included the booking photographs and arrest records of people who had been incarcerated in Bucks County – including those “who had been arrested years before and had their charges either expunged or dismissed.” Id. ¶¶ 30-31. This allowed the corporate defendants to obtain Taha’s record and picture and publish them on their own websites for “public consumption,” without Taha’s consent. Id. ¶ 33. At the time he filed his original complaint in 2012, Taha’s information and photograph remained available on the BCCF site. See id. ¶ 32. Taha had been convicted of no crime in the thirteen years since his arrest, see id. ¶ 34; the internet publication of his “mugshot” and 1998 record caused him reputational, emotional and financial harm. See id. ¶¶ 39-41.
2

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 3 of 16
Counts I and II of Taha’s Second Amended Complaint allege that the County defendants disseminated Taha’s criminal history record information in violation of § 9121 of the CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9101 et seq. The County defendants move to dismiss both counts. II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court has federal subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. To decide a motion to dismiss, a court may consider “the allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record.” Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993).
Because this is a diversity action, Pennsylvania’s substantive law applies. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-80 (1938). Where the law is unclear and there is no controlling decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, this Court must “predict” how it would rule, giving “due regard, but not conclusive effect, to the decisional law of lower state courts.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buffetta, 230 F.3d 634, 637 (3d Cir. 2000); see also West v. AT&T Co., 311 U.S. 223, 237 (1940). III. DISCUSSION
A. Governmental Immunity from CHRIA Damages Claim The County defendants move to dismiss Count I on the grounds that they are immune from suits for damages pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act
3

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 4 of 16
(“PSTCA”), 42 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 8541-42.1 Taha contends that the PSTCA does not shield government entities from CHRIA damages claims. Because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not directly addressed the applicability of the PSTCA in this context, I must predict how it would rule. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 230 F.3d at 637.
1) The CHRIA The Pennsylvania legislature adopted the CHRIA in 1980 in order to “provide for an orderly collection and dissemination of criminal history information in the Commonwealth.” Commw. of Pa. Office of Att’y Gen., CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION ACT HANDBOOK 1 (7th ed. 2013) [hereinafter CHRIA Handbook]. Most centrally, the CHRIA tasks the Pennsylvania State Police with the “collection, compilation, maintenance and dissemination of criminal history record information” through a “central repository.” Id. § 9102. “Criminal justice agencies” – governmental units that include courts, police departments, jails and prisons, see id. – must collect and relay certain information to the central repository, ensuring that it is accurate. See id. §§ 9111-14. To the extent they maintain their own “repositories” or “automated systems,” they must comply with provisions relating to accuracy, security and public notice. See id. §§ 9102, 9106, 9111-14, 9131, 9142, 9171. Section 9121, the provision at issue here, imposes restrictions on the “dissemination” of criminal history information by criminal justice agencies and police departments. The CHRIA establishes separate requirements for the official handling of sensitive “protected information,” id. § 9106, as well as procedures for expungement, see id. § 9122-23. It also includes two provisions limiting the use of criminal records by state licensing agencies and 1 Because the County defendants have not raised the availability of punitive damages specifically, I will not address that issue at present. Additionally, I note that Count I of the Second Amended Complaint is not limited to damages; Taha also seeks injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. Governmental immunity pursuant to the PSTCA is therefore not a defense to Count I in its entirety.
4

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 5 of 16
by employers (in making hiring decisions). See id. §§ 9124-25. Subchapter F establishes an “individual right of access and review” of a person’s own record information, see id. §§ 9151-53, while Subchapters E and G authorize the state Attorney General to implement and enforce the CHRIA regime. See id. §§ 9141-43, 9161.
Finally, the CHRIA includes sanctions for violations of its terms. Section 9181 provides that any “person, including any agency or organization,” who violates the CHRIA may be “denied access to specified criminal history record information,” “subject to civil penalties or other remedies as provided for in this chapter,” or, in the case of an agency employee, “administratively disciplined.” Section 9183 (“Civil Actions”) establishes a cause of action for suits seeking injunctive relief or damages. Subsection (a) empowers the Attorney General “or any other individual or agency” to institute an action “against any person, agency or organization” to enjoin a CHRIA violation or compel compliance. Subsection (b) provides as follows:
(b) Action for damages.
(1) Any person aggrieved by a violation of [the CHRIA], shall have the substantive right to bring an action for damages by reason of such violation in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) A person found by the court to have been aggrieved by a violation of this chapter or the rules or regulations promulgated under this chapter, shall be entitled to actual and real damages of not less than $100 for each violation and to reasonable costs of litigation and attorney's fees. Exemplary and punitive damages of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 shall be imposed for any violation of this chapter, or the rules or regulations adopted under this chapter, found to be willful.
The County defendants do not contest the fact that, taking his allegations to be true, Taha qualifies as a person “aggrieved by a violation” of the CHRIA. The question before the Court is
5

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 6 of 16
whether he may pursue “actual and real damages” from the County defendants, or whether the PSTCA renders them immune.
2) The PSTCA The Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 8541-42, enacted in response to the judicial abolition of governmental immunity in Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education, 305 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1973), provides that “no local agency shall be liable for any damages on account of any injury to a person or property,” subject to eight enumerated exceptions not relevant here. Id. §§ 8541-42.2 In Meyer v. Community College of Beaver County, 2 A.3d 499 (Pa. 2010), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that PSTCA immunity does not extend to statutory claims “arising” in contract, but does extend to statutory claims “arising in tort.” See id. at 502 (finding that PSTCA conferred immunity for “‘injury to a person or property’ as a reflection of traditional tort jurisprudence”); id. at 505 (Orie Melvin, J., concurring) (directing Commonwealth Court to “ascertain whether the claims sound in tort or in contract and dispose of the matter accordingly”). This tort/contract framework, however, is not exhaustive. As both parties and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted in Meyer, the PSTCA does not apply to statutory schemes that specifically provide for damages against governmental actors. See 2 A.3d at 501 (acknowledging “the many statutory schemes providing for monetary redress against governmental entities”); id. at 502 (“With regard to the series of statutes referenced by Appellants embodying statutory damages remedies against governmental entities, the College 2 The exception categories are “vehicle liability;” “care, custody or control of personal property;” “real property;” “trees, traffic controls and street lighting;” “utility service facilities;” “streets;” “sidewalks;” and “care, custody or control of animals.” Id. § 8542(b)(1)-(8). Taha has not argued that any exception applies. Cf. Bufford v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 670 A.2d 751, 753-55 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996) (holding that negligent management of driving record did not fall within personal property exception).
6

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 7 of 16
acknowledges that targeted enactments control over the more general provision for governmental immunity.”).3 Such statutes constitute independent waivers of sovereign and governmental
immunity. Cf. 1 Pa. C.S.A. § 2310 (stating that claims may be brought against the
Commonwealth where “specifically authorized by statute”). In the words of the General
Assembly’s Local Government Commission, “no immunity would exist where the
Commonwealth specifically has allowed in another law for the possibility that civil damages
may be recoverable, as is the case, for example, under Act 169 of 1986, the Whistleblower Law.”
Pa. Gen. Assembly, Local Gov’t Comm’n, PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATOR’S MUNICIPAL DESKBOOK
79 (3d ed. 2006); see also, e.g., 62 Pa. C.S.A. § 3935 (penalty provision of government
procurement code providing for damages); 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5725 (cause of action for unlawful interception of communications containing waiver of sovereign immunity).4
The question here, then, is whether the CHRIA constitutes a “targeted enactment”
authorizing damage suits against government actors.
3) Analysis
The text of § 9183 itself, as the County defendants point out, does not contain an express
authorization. While subsection (a) explicitly provides for injunctive relief against “any criminal 3 Even excluding statutes that provide for damages against the government, it is not clear that every statutory claim must sound in either tort or contract. Meyer seems to assume as much, but does not hold so explicitly. Cf. In re Bradley Estate, 835 N.W. 2d 545 (Mich. 2013) (addressing this question for purposes of Michigan law, with vigorous dissents); Fed. Election Comm'n v. Williams, 104 F.3d 237, 240 (9th Cir. 1996) (suggesting that “actions for the assessment or imposition of civil penalties” do not sound in tort). 4 The County defendants cite one case suggesting that the legislature cannot waive governmental immunity at all beyond the terms of the PTSCA: Antonis v. Liberati, 821 A.2d 666, 668 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). To the extent it has this import, the decision cannot be reconciled with the fact that governmental immunity is a creature of statute that the legislature can waive at will, nor with the fact that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and lower courts routinely honor such waivers. Notably, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s permission to appeal, see 842 A.2d 407 (2004), but the appeal was not completed.
7

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 8 of 16
justice agency,” subsection (b) does not specify the entities against which damages may be sought. Provisions of a complex statutory regime cannot be read in a void, however; in order to determine legislative intent, the analysis must consider the statute as a whole, taking into account its purpose and context. See 1 Pa. C.S.A. § 1921; E.D.B. v. Clair, 987 A.2d 681, 684 (Pa. 2009). The CHRIA, read as an integrated whole, clearly does authorize damage suits against governmental entities.5
To begin with, nearly all of the CHRIA’s provisions exclusively regulate governmental units: “criminal justice agencies” and their record information “repositories.” See 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9102. The Act contains one provision that restricts private actors – the limitation on the use of criminal records by “employers,” § 9125 – and a handful creating individual rights, see id. §§ 9151-53 (right-of-access provisions); 9122-23 (expungement), but otherwise this comprehensive regime addresses governmental actors only. It is apparent from the structure and content of the CHRIA that its object was to ensure the “orderly collection and dissemination of criminal history information” by the Pennsylvania criminal justice apparatus. CHRIA Handbook at 1; see also Schmidt v. Deutsch Larrimore Farnish & Anderson, LLP, 876 A.2d 1044, 1047 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (rejecting plaintiff’s claim that CHRIA’s dissemination provisions applied to private law firm).
Given that fact, logic requires the conclusion that the CHRIA’s damages provision was intended to apply to governmental units. This would be beyond dispute if the Act did not extend to private persons at all. The Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa. C.S.A. § 1421 et seq., is an example of a statute that regulates governmental actors exclusively. Like the CHRIA, it includes a private right of action, see id. § 1424, and a separate “enforcement” provision that empowers courts to
5 So far as I can ascertain, the CHRIA’s sparse legislative history does not speak to this point. The analysis must therefore rely on the statute itself.
8

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 9 of 16
award “actual damages,” id. § 1425. No provision expressly provides that damages may be sought against government entities, but, as the Court explained in Rankin v. City of Philadelphia, 963 F. Supp. 463 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (Brody, J.),
the Whistleblower Law's general scheme . . . demonstrates a legislative waiver of immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. The Law essentially creates a statutory tort that applies only to governmental employers, and thus is not a cause of action of general application, such as the common law tort action for negligence, that was of most obvious concern to the General Assembly when it enacted the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Id. at 475. See also O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1202-05 (Pa. 2001) (noting that “recovery under the [Whistleblower] statute is proportionate to the harm suffered”); Retenauer v. Flaherty, 642 A.2d 587, 594-95 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994) (concluding that “[t]he City is generally the responsible party for satisfaction of damages under the Whistleblower Law”).6 But for § 9125 (which regulates “employers”), remedies for violation of the CHRIA would apply only to government actors and their agents. Section 9183 is certainly “not a cause of action of general application” like negligence, or like the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law claim at issue in Meyer. The CHRIA’s “general scheme” thus demonstrates a waiver of immunity. It cannot be that the legislature intended the statute’s most effective sanction to be inapplicable to most of the regime. Furthermore, even when statutes regulate both government and private conduct and lack explicit waivers, Pennsylvania courts have interpreted them to waive immunity when they specifically provide that the regime, as a whole, applies to government units. As the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court wrote of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”),
6 This reasoning should be equally applicable to Pennsylvania’s statute for the “protection of public utility employees,” 66 Pa. C.S.A. § 3316, which includes nearly identical provisions.
9

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 10 of 16
[T]he legislature obviously meant to allow an aggrieved public employee to bring an action against his or her employer, the Commonwealth, for it included the Commonwealth under the term “employer” in Section 4 of the Act, 43 Pa. C.S. § 954. The appellee's claim therefore is not one sounding in trespass and thereby affected by Act 152, the recent enactment as to sovereign immunity, but rather it is a statutorily created cause of action against the Commonwealth as an “employer”, not the Commonwealth as a sovereign entity. Mansfield State Coll. v. Kovich, 407 A.2d 1387, 1388 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979) (internal citations omitted); see also Verde v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F. Supp. 1329, 1335 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (“[T]he “plain meaning rule” of the Pennsylvania Statutory Construction Act, combined with the Pennsylvania Legislature’s consistent reaffirmation of the definition of “employer” that includes the City, mandates a finding that the City is not immune from suit under the PHRA.”). Along similar lines, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has held that sovereign immunity does not bar suit under the Dam Act “because the Dam Act provides a remedy against any person who violates the act, [and] includes within the definition of ‘person’ ‘any department, board, commission or authority of the Commonwealth.’” Odette's, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 699 A.2d 775, 779 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997).7 The CHRIA is far more explicit than the PHRA and the Dam Act: It specifically regulates governmental “criminal justice agencies.” See 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9102; see also id. § 9111 (emphasizing that “every criminal justice agency within the Commonwealth” must “maintain complete and accurate criminal history record information” and “report such information . . . as required by the provisions of this chapter”). In terms of sanctions, § 9106 specifies that “[a]ny person, including any agency or organization, who violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to . . . the civil penalties provided in section 9183,” and § 9181 7 Although sovereign and governmental immunity are distinct, the Pennsylvania statutes governing them – the Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 8521-22 and PSTCA, id. §§ 8541-42 – are to be read “consistently.” Jones v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 772 A.2d 435, 440 (Pa. 2001).
10

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 11 of 16
provides more broadly that “[a]ny person, including any agency or organization, who violates the provisions of this chapter or any regulations or rules promulgated under it may . . . [b]e subject to civil penalties or other remedies as provided for in this chapter.” Id. §§ 9106, 9181 (emphasis added). The plain meaning of these provisions is that criminal justice agencies are subject to the civil penalties of § 9183.
To hold otherwise would contravene the words of the statute. The CHRIA states that a person aggrieved by a violation of its terms “shall be entitled to actual and real damages.” Id. § 9183(b) (emphasis added). Section 9121 of the CHRIA, the substantive provision at issue here, can only be violated by government actors. If an aggrieved person “shall” be entitled to damages for a violation, it is necessarily against a government unit. At least with respect to those CHRIA provisions that apply exclusively to government actors, then, § 9183 contains a specific authorization for damages suit.8
The relevant case law supports this conclusion. Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not directly addressed whether the PSTCA bars CHRIA damage suits against the government, it has indirectly held that such damages are available. The plaintiff in Hunt v. Pennsylvania State Police, 983 A.2d 627 (Pa. 2009), had sued the state police for violations of CHRIA’s expungement provisions. The Commonwealth Court issued a decision in his favor but denied his request for actual and punitive damages. When the state police appealed the decision, Hunt cross-appealed the denial of damages. Id. at 631 & n.8.
The Supreme Court wrote:
8 A separate law provides further evidence: The statute that re-established Pennsylvania’s state DNA database in 2005, 44 Pa. C.S.A. § 2301 et seq., contains a damages provision identical to the CHRIA’s, see id. § 2333, which necessarily applies to the governmental units charged with the management of the database.
11

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 12 of 16
As is plain from a reading of the statute, by its terms, CHRIA provides for the possibility of actual and real damages, and reasonable costs of litigation and counsel fees, where a person was found to have been aggrieved by a violation of CHRIA. The statute also contains a provision for the award of exemplary and punitive damages when the violation is found to be willful. CHRIA does not define the term “aggrieved,” nor does it set forth whether the Commonwealth may be liable for punitive damages under the statute. Id. at 639. It then remanded the case for the Commonwealth Court to determine whether Hunt was “aggrieved” by the actions of the state police, “whether exemplary and punitive damages are available against the State Police as a government agency” in light of “case law suggest[ing] the Commonwealth may be exempt from the imposition of punitive damages” (an issue the Court raised sua sponte), and finally, if so, whether punitive damages were warranted. Id. The Supreme Court conspicuously did not ask the Commonwealth Court to determine whether actual damages are available against the State Police. It did not raise the PSTCA as a potential bar. The Court’s language and action implies, instead, that if Hunt were “aggrieved,” he would be entitled to the “actual and real damages” contemplated by the statute. Indeed, given that this issue was before the Court, and that it did not specify otherwise, this is the only logical interpretation of the decision. In addition, a number of other Pennsylvania courts have held or assumed that the CHRIA provides for damages against government units. See Schmidt v. Deutsch Larrimore Farnish & Anderson, LLP, 876 A.2d 1044, 1047 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (“We agree with appellant that the Act clearly provides for civil actions against criminal and non-criminal agencies as well as individuals; the language excerpted above makes that clear.”); In re Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Bd., 2010 WL 5775100 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2010) (stating that, if a local police department violated the CHRIA, “the city would be subject to . . . damage actions brought by persons
12

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 13 of 16
aggrieved”), aff'd, 36 A.3d 631 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011), permission to appeal denied by 44 A.3d 1163 (Pa. 2012). More generally, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has written that
§ 9183 provides for broad remedies in the event of noncompliance . . . . We conclude that the purpose of this provision is not to restrict the manner in which a party may seek to enforce the Act, but to expand the avenues of relief. Commonwealth v. M.M.M., 779 A.2d 1158, 1163-64 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). In this district, at least one court has allowed a damage claim against a municipal entity to proceed past a motion to dismiss. See Rosiji v. City of Phila., No. 11-6469, 2012 WL 1646726 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (denying motion to dismiss) & ECF Doc. 18 (amended complaint seeking “compensatory and punitive damages against the City” under the CHRIA). On the other side of the ledger, one district court has held the PSTCA to bar CHRIA damage suits against governmental units. See Devore v. City of Phila., No. 04-3030, 2005 WL 352698, at *6 & n.4 (E.D. Pa. 2005). It does not appear, however, that the Court had occasion to consider the issue at length. The more complex decision is Poliskiewicz v. East Stroudsburg University, 536 A.2d 472 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998), in which the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that sovereign immunity barred suit against a state college for violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9125, the CHRIA provision limiting the use of criminal records in hiring decisions. On a close reading, the decision is quite narrow: the Court concluded that nothing in the CHRIA demonstrated “that the legislature has specifically waived the defense [of sovereign immunity] for purposes of the type of action brought here,” id. at 475 (emphasis added) – a CHRIA employment discrimination suit. Section 9125, which applies to all “employers,” is arguably a “cause of action of general application,” Rankin, 963 F. Supp. at 475, such that immunity should apply. The Commonwealth Court did not consider or decide whether the Act waived immunity for purposes of other types of CHRIA claims.
13

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 14 of 16
Taking into account this legal landscape, and the structure and content of the CHRIA, I predict that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would hold that the statute demonstrates a clear legislative intent to hold government entities liable for damages for violation of § 9121. The CHRIA is a comprehensive statutory regime, the primary goal of which is to regulate governmental actors. It imposes affirmative duties on criminal justice agencies, and specifically provides that “any agency” shall be subject to the civil penalties of § 9183. Pennsylvania courts have found less explicit language, and more ambiguous structure, to waive governmental immunity.
It would not only strain logic and the language of the CHRIA to hold otherwise; it would also undermine the regime. Given the nature of the harm that violations of the CHRIA may cause to one “aggrieved,” injunctive relief is, at best, partial. Once false or inappropriate criminal history information has been released, the reputational damage is done. The bell cannot be unrung. The Pennsylvania legislature sought, in enacting the CHRIA, to protect individual privacy and dignity. See, e.g., In re Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Bd., 16 Pa. D. & C. 5th 435, 445 (noting that the purpose of the CHRIA “is to balance the public's right to know with privacy rights of the citizens of this Commonwealth”). Its manifest intent was to encourage compliance, and provide relief for violations, through a damages remedy. At least in the case of those provisions that can only be violated by government actors, the damages remedy constitutes a waiver of governmental immunity. I will accordingly deny the County defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I.
B. Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief The County defendants have also moved to dismiss Count II, on the ground that Taha lacks standing to seek injunctive relief because the problematic material is no longer available on
14

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 15 of 16
the BCCF website, and Taha “cannot establish a credible threat of future harm.” Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 38) at p. 13; see also SAC ¶ 32 (“At the time of filing the original Complaint, Plaintiff’s criminal history record information was still available and publicly accessible on the Bucks County Correctional Facility’s website.”); Defs.’ Br., p. 2 (“[U]pon receiving notice of this lawsuit, . . . the County and the BCCF removed all references to Plaintiff from its database.”).9
The County defendants are correct that the jurisdiction of Article III courts is limited to “Cases” and “Controversies,” and that a claim becomes moot – “and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III – when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721, 726-27 (2013) (citation omitted). A defendant, however, “cannot automatically moot a case simply by ending its unlawful conduct once sued.” Id. (citing City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982)). Rather, pursuant to the “voluntary cessation doctrine,” “a defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Id. (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000)). In Already, the Supreme Court found Nike’s “unconditional and irrevocable” covenant to refrain from the challenged activity to meet this high threshold. The County and BCCF have not made any comparable showing. I will therefore deny the motion to dismiss Count II.
9 It is not clear that Count II constitutes an independent claim. It appears duplicative of Count I, which alleges the same CHRIA violations and includes a request for “an injunction, ordering both Defendants to take down their websites.” Compl. at ¶ 51. Nonetheless, given that § 9183 includes two distinct sub-provisions, one that authorizes suits for injunctive relief and one that authorizes actions for damages, see §§ 9183(a) & (b), it arguably creates separate causes of action with distinct requirements for standing. The Court will thus treat Taha’s Count II as asserting a claim pursuant to § 9183(a).
15

Case 2:12-cv-06867-WB Document 64 Filed 02/21/14 Page 16 of 16 IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons given, the County defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against them will be denied. An implementing order follows.
16

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARYOUSHTAHA Individually and on Behalfof All Others Similarly Situated

CIVIL ACTION

v.
BUCKS COUNTY, et al.

NO. 12-6867~ ~ ~,. [: ~

Restrepo, J.

MEMORANDUM

MAR 2 6 2014

.,.,..., . . r ' ··~~·' ·_::.-~

~·-. '

Marcir · ;= ·· 4·- -.·· - __,;<

Presently before the Court is the motion by Citizens Information Associates, LLC

("CIA") to dismiss Daryoush Taha's claims against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in

part.

I. BACKGROUND

I have recently summarized the alleged facts giving rise to this suit, see Taha v. Bucks

Cnty., 2014 WL 695205 (E.D. Pa. 2014), and will revisit them only briefly. PlaintiffDaryoush

Taha was arrested by the Bensalem police in 1998, processed into custody, transferred to the

Bucks County Correctional Facility ("BCCF"), and charged with a criminal offense. Second

Amended Complaint ("SAC"), ECF Doc. 33, ~~ 20-22. Although Taha believed himself

innocent, he accepted an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition to ensure that the arrest and

charge would be expunged. Id. ~~ 23-24. In 2000, the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas

entered an expungement order. Id. ~ 26. In 2007, however, Bucks County and the BCCF created

a public website that included Taha's 1998 mugshot and arrest information. Id.~~ 30-31. CIA

obtained and re-published the mugshot and arrest information, along with Taha's name and age,

1

on the websites bustedmugshots.com and mugshotsonline.com. Id.~~ 33, 39-41. According to Taha's allegations, CIA's commercial objective is "to draw social media attention" to the mugshots and criminal records it publishes, "earn advertising revenue," and "extract a fee from the publicly disgraced individual in order to 'unpublish' their information." Id.~ 37.
Taha subsequently brought suit against Bucks County and the BCCF, along with the then-unknown companies that own the websites on which his mugshot and arrest record had appeared. It has now been established that CIA owns and operates two of the websites at issue. Taha's Second Amended Complaint includes three substantive claims against CIA: (1) dissemination of his criminal history record information in violation of§ 9121 of Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act ("CHRIA"), 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9101 et seq.; (2) unauthorized use of a name or likeness in violation of 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8316; and (3) portraying him in a "false light," a subset of the tort of invasion of privacy. CIA moves to dismiss all three claims. II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
This is a diversity action; jurisdiction lies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), and Pennsylvania's substantive law applies. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-80 (1938). Where the law is unclear and there is no controlling decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, I must "predict" how it would rule, giving "due regard, but not conclusive effect, to the decisional law oflower state courts." Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buffetta, 230 F.3d 634, 637 (3d Cir. 2000); see also West v. AT&T Co., 311 U.S. 223, 237 (1940).
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This
2

"requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. To decide a motion to dismiss, a court may consider "the allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record." Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). In addition, "a court may consider an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiffs claims are based on the document." Id. Ill. DISCUSSION
A. CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 9121, 9183 Counts I and II of Taha's Second Amended Complaint seek damages and injunctive relief for violation of§ 9121 of the CHRIA, which governs "dissemination of records by criminal justice agencies to other criminal justice agencies, noncriminal justice agencies and individuals." Schmidt v. Deutsch Larrimore Farnish & Anderson, LLP, 876 A.2d 1044, 1047 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). The provision does not address purely private conduct. It establishes a set of rules for criminal justice agencies - among which "only state or local police departments" may disseminate record information to the public at large, Pa. Office of Att'y Gen., CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION ACT HANDBOOK 1, 14 (7th ed. 2013); see also 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 912l(b)- but says nothing about private actors. It would require an inductive leap to hold that these rules, by implication, prohibit any sharing of criminal history record information by private persons. Cf 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9102 (defining "dissemination" as "[t]he oral or written transmission or disclosure of criminal history record information ..."). Taha has not, in fact, argued that§ 9121 prohibits dissemination by purely private actors. Nor has he claimed that CIA's conduct rendered it a de facto criminal justice agency. Rather, he
3

suggests that, because the County defendants disseminated his record information in violation of § 9.121, any subsequent re-publication of it constitutes an additional violation, as the republication of defamatory material may constitute an independent act of defamation.
The analogy is inapt. Defamation is a tort that anyone can commit; violation of § 9121 is not. Because§ 9121 regulates dissemination by criminal justice agencies only, Taha's claims against CIA for violation of§ 9121 will be dismissed.
B. Unauthorized Use of a Name or Likeness, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8316 Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8316, any natural person whose name or likeness has commercial value and is used for any commercial or advertising purpose without the written consent of such natural person ... may bring an action to enjoin such unauthorized use and to recover damages for any loss or injury sustained by such use. The statute defines "commercial value" as "[v]aluable interest in a natural person's name or likeness that is developed through the investment oftime, effort and money." Id. § 8316(e). Typically, plaintiffs who invoke § 8316 have invested resources in the development of a personal brand, and are suing to redress the unauthorized exploitation of that brand. In Lewis v. Marriott International, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 422 (E.D. Pa. 2007), for instance, the Court found that a former hotel chef had stated a § 8316 claim against the hotel operator, which had continued to use his name to advertise wedding packages, where the chef "detail[ed] with particularity the investment of time from the early 1980s onward that he made in creating a reputation in the industry." Id at 428. And in Eagle v. Morgan, No. 11-4303, 2013 WL 943350 (E.D. Pa. 2013), the Court issued a verdict for a plaintiff who had presented "ample testimony that the name 'Dr. Linda Eagle' has commercial value due to her investment oftime and effort in developing her reputation in the banking education industry." Id. at *7.
4

As CIA notes, Taha has alleged no facts demonstrating that he has invested time, effort and money to create "valuable interest" in his name or likeness. Presuming that he can allege such facts, his claim presents the additional wrinkle that it is exactly the inverse of the prototypical § 8316 claim. While the typical plaintiff complains that a defendant has profited by appropriating the value of her brand, Taha complains that CIA has profited by threatening the value of his brand - that it has ransomed his good name. Whether § 8316 encompasses this kind of activity is a question for a later opinion, as are the questions of whether CIA's websites constitute "news reports," see id. § 8316(e)(2), and whether application of§ 8316 here would violate the First Amendment. Taha's claim will be dismissed without prejudice; should he wish to re-plead it with facts sufficient to show that his name and likeness have "commercial value" as defined by § 8316(e), he may do so.
C. False Light To prevail on a claim of "false light," a plaintiff "must show that a highly offensive false statement was publicized by [defendants] with knowledge or in reckless disregard of the falsity." Santillo v. Reedel, 634 A.2d 264, 266 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993). The false statement need not be explicit. "Literal accuracy of separate statements will not render a communication 'true' where the implication of the communication as a whole was false." Id. at 267 (quoting Larsen v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 543 A.2d 1181, 1189 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)). A plaintiff may thus prove a false-light claim by showing that a defendant "created a false impression by knowingly or recklessly publicizing selective pieces of true information." Id. "[D]espite the accuracy of the facts disseminated, discrete presentation of information in a fashion which renders the publication susceptible to inferences casting one in a false light entitles the grievant to recompense." Larsen, 543 A.2d at 1189.
5

Taha does not dispute that the discrete elements of information published by CIA were true. He claims, rather, that CIA selectively published his mugshot and arrest information in
order to falsely portray him as a "criminal," SAC at ii 64, and created "a false impression regarding [his] criminal history and character." Id. at ii 66. He alleges that CIA's business
model depends on casting people in a sordid light, so that they will pay to have their mugshots and records "unpublished." CIA counters that its websites include the disclaimer that "[a]n arrest does not mean that the individual has been convicted of the alleged violation. Individuals on this website are innocent until proven guilty by a court oflaw." Doc. 54-3. 1 Given the disclaimer and the accuracy of the information published, CIA contends that its websites could not possibly give rise to any false impression. Furthermore, CIA argues, even if the websites could be construed as conveying a false impression, CIA could not be found to have acted in reckless disregard of any falsity.
I cannot endorse CIA's position as a matter oflaw. The questions here are questions of fact, and Taha's claim, at this stage, is not implausible. The bustedmugshots.com webpage on which Taha's profile appears features the legend "BUSTED!" in large bold letters over his mugshot, as well as a faint image of the company's icon: "B!" in a square speech bubble. Doc. 54-3. Taha's "Information" and "Booking Charges" are prominently placed in the center of the page, as are two clickable options to "Get Detailed Information About This Arrest" and "Monitor This Person For Future Arrests." Id. The disclaimer appears in very small font further down the page.
It is plausible that this design creates the impression that Taha is a "criminal" - at the very least, that he is guilty, that he has done something wrong, that his conduct warrants 1 CIA has appended an image of the bustedmugshots.com webpage featuring Taha to its motion to dismiss. Because there is no dispute as to the authenticity of the image and it forms the basis ofTaha's claim, I may consider it in deciding the motion. See Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 998 F.2d at 1196.
6

monitoring in future. And it is plausible that CIA acted in reckless disregard of the possibility that Taha was entirely innocent, that he was not "BUSTED!" but instead unjustly detained. If CIA's business model is extortion by shame, as Taha alleges, the claim is stronger still.
Taha's allegations, accepted as true, are sufficient to state a false-light claim "that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. I will deny CIA's motion with respect to this claim. IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons given, CIA's motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part. An implementing order follows.
ENTERED MAR 2 6 2014
CLERK OF COURT
7