IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ROY C. JOHNSON, PAULA ANDERSON, MARVIN BLADES, WALTER BUSBY, DEBBIE CRISP, DEBRA DICKENS, CORNELIUS DEAN FINLEY, DEBORAH J. DANIELS FLEAK, STEVEN GIBBS, DWIGHT JACKSON, DEREK LEWIS, TYRONE LYNN, MARK MOORE, RAY NELSON, RUFUS NEWSOME, TAMMARA McKINNEY OLDEN, GARY PITTS, NANCY REED, and ALBERT YOUNG, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

FSIELPE1 D7 1997
Phil Lombardi, Clerk U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiffs,

THE CITY OF TULSA, a municipal corporation of the State of Oklahoma,
Defendant. FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs bring this action for themselves, and on behalf of all others Similarly situated, against the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma. 2. This is an action for injunctive rehef arising from violations of the fights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the First, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as the rights to equal employment oppommity guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

First Amended Class Action Complaint JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Page 2

" 3.~ The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 to secure protection of and to redress deprivations of rights secured by:
(A) The First, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution which provide for the rights of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States to enjoy freedom of speech, movement, association and assembly, to petition their government for redress of their grievances, to be free from the badges andincidents of

slavery, and from deprivations of libe__rty and property without due process of law, as enforced by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides for the protection of all persons in their civil rights and the redress of deprivation of rights under color of law.
(B) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§

2000e - 2000e-17 (Title VII) which provides for injunctive and other relief against

discrimination in employment on the basis of race, religion, sex, and national origin, and

against retaliation for opposing unlawful employment practices or participating in

proceedings to enforce rights under Title VII.

4. The jurisdiction of this Court also is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve

¯ a cbntroversy arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, particularly the

First, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Title VII

First Amended Class Action Complaint ¯

Page 3

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17, and 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1983 and 1988. 5. Monetary damages are inadequate and plaintiffs have suffered, now suffer, and

will suffer irreparable harm from defendant’s violations of the Constitution and laws of the

United States. Accordingly, injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate. 6. Venue is appropriate in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Oklahoma pursuant to 28 UIS.C. § 1391(b).

PLAINTIFFS 7. The named plaintiffs are United States citizens, are blacks of African descent

and Color (African-American), and are present or former swom personnel of the Tulsa Police

Department (TPD).

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

8. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for themselves and

on behalf of all other African-American persons similarly situated with respect to

employment with the Tulsa Police Department.

9. The members of the plaintiff class include: (a) all African-American persons

who now or in the future are swom personnel of the TPD; (b) all African-American persons

who are former swom personnel of the TPD and whose employment terminated within 300

days of the in’st filing of a charge of discrimination by one of the plaintiffs; and (c) all

African-American persons who made application for but were denied admission to the TPD

First Amended Class Action Complaint

Page 4

academy. Plaintiffs seek for themselves and the members of the class injunctive relief to

require defendant to eliminate the official policy and custom of retaliation against plaintiffs

for plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment fights, to eliminate racial discrimination from the actions, policies, and practices of the TPD with respect to employment, to require

defendant to remedy the effects of past racial discrimination upon the terms and conditions

of employment within the TPD and, to require defendant to establish and enforce standards and procedures which promote a workplace free of racial discrimination and harassment.
10. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: (a) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

(b) substantial questions of law and fact are common to the entire class; (c) the claims of the

named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the classmembers; (d) counsel for the named plaintiffs possess sufficient legal resources and experience to fairly and adequately represent

the interests of all classmembers; (e) defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable

to the class as a whole, making fmal injunctive relief appropriate; (f) the prosecution of separate actions by individual classmembers would create a risk of varying adjudications for individual classmembers and the concomitant risk that separate and incompatible standards

of conduct will be imposed upon this defendant; and (g) the prosecution and adjudication of

common, or similar, claims through separate actions would, as a practical matter, dispose of

the claims of the classmembers without affording them the ability to protect their interests.

11. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate

over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other

First Amended Class Action Complaint

Pase 5

available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, inasmuch as the

individual members are deprived of essentially the same rights by defendant’s policies,

practices, customs and actions, and differ only in collateral aspects of their factual circumstances.
12. The questions of law and fact common to the class and the named plaintiffs

include, without limitation: A. Whether defendant City of Tulsa, while acting under color of state law,

has established, encouraged, adopted, ratified or otherwise sanctioned employment policies, practices, customs, and actions which deny plaintiffs’ the free exercise of their First Amendment rights;
B. Whether defendant City of Tulsa has established, encouraged, adopted,

ratified or otherwise sanctioned employment policies, practices, customs, and actions which

discriminate against African-Americans on the basis of race in the terms and conditions of

employment within the TPD;

C. Whether defendant City of Tulsa has established, encouraged, adopted,

ratified or otherwise sanctioned employment policies, practices or customs which have a

disparate impact upon African-Americans in the terms and conditions of employment within

the TPD;

D. Whether defendant City of Tulsa, while acting under color of state law,

has established, encouraged, adopted, ratified or otherwise sanctioned policies, practices,

First Amended Class Action Complaint

Page 6

customs and actions which have substantially deprived African-American sworn personnel

of the TPD of their Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment fights;

E. Whether defendant City of Tulsa, as a public employer and while acting

under color of state law, has deprived African-Americans of the full and equal enjoyment of

the rights and privileges and the full and equal benefit of all laws because of plaintiffs’ race.

DEFENDANT

13. Defendant City of Tulsa is a municipality incorporated as a city under the laws

of the State of Oklahoma and is located in Tulsa County, in the State of Oklahoma.

14. Defendant is authorized, pursuant to Oklahoma statutory law and the. charter

of the City of Tulsa, to establish, maintain and supervise the operations of the Tulsa Police

Department. Okla. Stat. tit. 11, § 22-101 (1991).

15. The policies, procedures, customs and actions of defendant which are alleged

herein were promulgated, implemented, ratified or otherwise sanctioned under color of the

ordinances of the City of Tulsa and the State of Oklahoma and therefore constitute acts of

the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

16. The history of the Tulsa Police Department reflects the City’s long-standing

patterns and practices, as well as the conditions and concomitant tensions, of racial

segregation and discrimination.

First Amended Class Action Complaint

Page 7

17. That history remains unabated in the TPD. The TPD continues the long-

standing patterns and practices which treat citizens of color more hars.hly than white citizens. Harsh and disparate treatment is not reserved for citizens of color, however, but also is meted

out to poor citizens and other disfavored minorities. Defendant has failed and refused to take steps reasonably calculated to abate the patterns and practices of disparate treatment of these citizensby the TPD.

18. Defendant also attempts to restrain plaintiffs from reporting or disclosing in

any fashion incidents manifesting the patterns and practices of TPD mistreatment of such

citizens and, has retaliated against plaintiffs for reporting and disclosing such mistreatment. Defendant’s retaliation includes, without limitation: (a) refusing and failing to provide

backup to officers who report or disclose the mistreatment of citizens; (b) taking adverse

employment action against plaintiffs as a pretext for retaliation, and; (c) harassing plaintiffs and creating an abusive work environment for plaintiffs.
19. Defendant also has failed and refused to abate the historical patterns and prac~ces of racial discrimination in employment in the TPD and, continues to follow official

policies, patterns and practices of racial discrimination against plaintiffs with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment:

A. Plaintiffs have been subjected to a racially hostile work environment within the TPD throughout their employment and continuing to the present. The TPD work

environment is permeated by an atmosphere of racial harassment, ridicule and disrespect.

The racially hostile work environment has and continues to be severe and it so permeates the

First Amended Class Action Complaint

Page 8

workplace that it has altered the terms and conditions of plaintiffs employment and created

an abusive work environment. African-Americans are Confronted in the workplace with

anonymous drawings, messages and other expressions of racial animus, racial stereotypes,

suspicion and ridicule. It is a common practice for white officers in the field to fail or refuse

to provide backup to African-American officers, despite TPD regulations which require

officers to respond to requests for backup. Defendant has long known of this pattern of

conduct but, defendant has failed to take steps to eliminate it.

B.. Defendant knows or should know of the racially hostile work

environment and has repeatedly, continuously and systematically failed and refused to take

reasonable steps designed to remedy the racially hostile work environment.

C. Defendant has failed to fully implement its affirmative action policies,

failed to meet its affirmative action goals, and has failed reasonably to train its employees

to implement or follow these policies.

D. Defendant fails to provide new African-American sworn personnel the

training on the job that defendant provides to new white officers.

E. Defendant excludes all, or substantially all, African-American sworn

personnel from preferred assignments within the TPD. Preferred assignments are those, such

as the Support Division, that offer specialized training and attractive work hours. Preferred

assignments are extended by invitation only from the higher ranks, which remain

predominately white, to white members of the lower ranks.

First Amended Class Action Complaint

Pase 9

Promotion procedures have relied upon subjective performance

evaluations whichwere impermissibly influenced by considerations of race; Afi’ican-

Americans received lower performance evaluations than similarly situated whites. Those

evaluations operated as headwinds against African-Americans in the promotional process.

When defendant has promoted African-Americans, it has done so in a manner calculated to

stigmatize those African-American officers as inferior and unqualified and, as having

received preferential treatment because of their race. Despite defendant’s purported current

reliance upon facially objective promotional processes, defendant’s promotional policies

simply have fi’ozen the status quo of prior discriminatory practices. Further, the promotional

procedures are inconsistent with federal law and regulations applicable to defendant.

G. African-American officers are subjected to harsher discipline and are

more likely to be discharged than similarly-situated white officers. White officers found to

have committed intentional violations of criminal laws--both misdemeanors and felonies--

have been treated more favorably than African-Americans who have been declared by the

TPD to merely have committed errors in judgment in the performance of their duties.

20. As a result of defendant’s unlawful employment policies and practices;

plaintiffs have become increasingly dissatisfied with their jobs and have made complaints

and filed, or have attempted to file, grievances pursuant to established departmental policies.

Defendant has failed and refused to fairly consider the grievances and complaints by African-

American sworn personnel.

First Amended Class Action Complaint

Page 10

21. Defendant also has attempted to restrain, coerce, and intimidate plaintiffs from

opposing racial discrimination in employment, from making complaints and filing

grievances, and from cooperating, participating, and testifying in proceedings to enforce the

laws prohibiting race discrimination in employment.

22. Defendant has and continues to utilize, adopt, ratify, and otherwise sanction

employment procedures which adversely impact the recruitment, selection, training,

assignment, promotion, discipline, and discharge, as well as other employment and

membership opporttmities of African-Americans because of their race. These-procedures are

inconsistent with federal law and regulations applicable to defendant.

23. As a result of defendant’s procedures, plaintiffs, because of their race, have

been denied the same employment, ¯promotion, membership, and other employment

opporttmities as have been available to white officers and applicants.

24. Defendant has and continues to encourage, condone, ratify, and otherwise

¯ sanction restraint, interference, and discrimination against plaintiffs because plaintiffs have

testified, assisted, and participated in investigations, proceedings, and hearings regarding

complaints of unlawful employment practices.

7

First Amended Class Action Complaint

Pal~e 11

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

25. The TPD’s mistreatment of racial minority and poor citizens is a matter of

public concern. Plaintiffs’ disclosure of incidents of the TPD’s mistreatment of citizens, as

well as plaintiffs’ expressions of concern and opposition to such mistreatment, constitutes

speech on matters of public concern. Public interest and policy regarding police treatment of citizens substantially outweighs any legitimate interest defendants may claim in regulating

or suppressing such speech. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ speech is protected by the First

Amendment. Defendant’s discrimination and harassment of plaintiffs because of these

actions constitutes a substantial deprivation of plaintiffs’ rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 26. Plaintiffs’ filing of this discrimination lawsuit constitutes speech protected by

the First, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendant’s discrimination and harassment of plaintiffs because of this action constitutes a substantial deprivation of

plaintiffs’ rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States as enforced by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. 27. The policies and practices of racial discrimination and harassment adopted,

ratified, perpetuated or otherwise sanctioned by defendant, have deprived plaintiffs of equal

First Amended Class Action Complaint

Page 12

protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States.

28. The conduct of defendant in depriving plaintiffs of rights, privileges and

immunities guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States because of plaintiffs’ race

has caused plaintiffs to suffer the badges and incidents of slavery in violation of the

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution,

29. The conduct of defendant has deprived plaintiffs of their liberty and property

interests without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), (d), (h) and (m) and § 2000e-3)

30. Plaintiffs are "employees" of the City of Tulsa within the meaning of Section

701 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(f).

31. Defendant City of Tulsa is an "employer" within the meaning of Section 701

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b).

32. The policies, practices, customs, actions, and omissions of the City of Tulsa

violate of 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

2(a)(1) and (2), 2000e-2(d), 2000e(h), and 2000e(m).

33. The policies, practices, customs, actions, and omissions of the City of Tulsa

violate Section 704 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-3.

First Amended Class Action Complaint -

Page 13

34. Defendant’s employment practices and policies have adversely affected

plaintiffs’ employment, have failed to remedy the lingering effects of past discrimination,

and have, in fact, perpetuated the history of racial discrimination and. segregation.

35. Plaintiffs have complied with the procedural requirements of Section 706 of

Title VII § 2000e-5(e) and are entitled to bring this action.

36. Defendant’s violations of Title VII are intentional and have and will continue

to adversely affect plaintiffs..Accordingly, it is necessary and appropriate to enjoin

defendant from engaging in these unlawful employment practices and to order other

affirmative equitable relief as may be appropriate including, without limitation,

reinstatement, hiring, promotion, and/or the opportunity to qualify under valid and non-

discriminatory selection procedures, retesting, reconsideration, back pay and front pay.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment:

A. Granting plaintiffs and the class they represent a preliminary and permanent

injunction enjoining defendant, its agents, employees, and those acting in concert with them,

from maintaining policies and practices of discrimination and harassment against plaintiffs

and the class they represent on the ground of race or color.

B. Granting plaintiffs and the class they represent a preliminary and permanent

injunction enjoining defendant, its agents, employees, and those acting in concert with them,

from retaliating, discriminating, or otherwise harassing plaintiffs, under color of state law,

First Amended Class Action Complaint

Page 14

because of plaintiffs’ exercise of their First, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights

and for exercising their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17. C. Granting plaintiffs and the class they represent a preliminary and permanent

injunction enjoining defendant, its agents, employees, and those acting in concert with them,

from denying plaintiffs the right to the full and equal enjoyment of the rights and privileges

of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property.

D. Granting plaintiffs and the class they represent all equitable relief available

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17;

and available under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. E. Awarding plaintiffs and the class they represent reasonable costs and expenses,

including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 2000e-5(k).

F. Granting plaintiffs and the class they represent such other and further relief as

the Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitte~d,

~

Louis W. BulI-6~, OBA #1305

Patricia W. Bullock, OBA #9569

Michele T. Gehres, OBA # 10986

BULLOCK & BULLOCK

320 South Boston, Suite 718

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-3783

918-584-2001

Fax: 918-582-7302

o and o

First Amended Class Action Complaint

Pal~e 15

Jean Walpole Coulter, OBA #9324 Jean Walpole Coulter & Associates Inc 2424 E 21st St Ste 340 . Tulsa OK 74114 918-749-6394 Fax: 918-749-1033

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
The undersigned does hereby certify that on the 17th day of September, 1997, a true
and correct, copy of the above and foregoing document was mailed, postage prepaid, to:
Michael C. Romig Paul F. Prather Leslie Myers Assistant City Attorney 200 Civic Center, Room 316 Tulsa OK 74103

Complaint.Amd

 
 Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 1 of 122

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

i 0D FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ~fI9~"\1'E

ROY C. JOHNSON, e( aI.,

MAy12200a

Plaintiffs,

) )

Puh.sil.

Lombardi, Clerk
DISTRICT COURT

)

CITY OF TULSA,

) )

J i
Case No. 94·CV-39-H(M)

Defendant,

)

)

LODGE #93 OF THE FRATERNAL

)

ORDER OFPOLlCE,

)

)

Defendant-Intervenor. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the Joint Motion for Approval and

Adoption of the Consent Decree (Docket No. 737), filed on December 3,2002 by Plaintiffs and

Defendant City ufTulsa (the "City"). The Court has reviewed the arguments and authorities

submitted by Plaintiffs, the City, and Defendant-Intervenor Lodge #93 of the Fraternal Order of

Police (the "FOP"). For the reasons set forth below, the Joint Motion for Approval and Adoption

of the Consent Decree (Docket No. 737) is hereby granted and the Consent Decree is hereby

approved.

I

On January 14, 1994, Roy C. Jolmson filed a complaint against the City of Tulsa alleging

racial discrimination in employment and demanding, inter alia, in excess of $1.5 million in

damages and an injunction against further discriminatory treatment. The City denied all

allegations and asserted certain affinnativc defenses. Tn July 1994, the case was stayed in order

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 2 of 122
to facilitate settlement discussions. That stay was lifted on February 14, 1996. Several months later, on May 1, 1996, Plaintiff lohnson sought to expand the lawsuit by
filing a motion for certification of a class or, in the alternative, for joinder of additional parties. At the time of Plaintiff lohnson's second amended motion on November 19, 1996, he sought to join seventeen additional named plaintiffs. The City objected to joinder of any additional parties. On April 11, 1997, the Court granted the motion for joinder and denied class certification, subject to re-urging upon presentation of further evidence. Plaintiffs subsequently re-urged the motion to certify the class, and the Court, by order of Mareh 17, 1998, granted the motion. The
class was comprised of all African-American persons who were then or would in the future be
sworn personnel of the Tulsa Police Department (the 'TID") and all Arncan-American persons who were fonner sworn personnel ofthe TPD and whose employment terminated on or after January 14, J992. There were nineteen named plaintiffs, all of whom asserted claims of systemic and long-standing racial discrimination within the TPD, The City denied all allegations of discrimination.
The case was effectively stayed for settlement negotiations through the end of 1998, but, when those negotiations failed to result in a settlement, the parties commenced active discovery. I At the end of2001, the parties filed a series oftnotions, including: Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the City's motion to sever the supervisory plaintiffs from thc class, and the
1 On February 1,2001, William F. Kaspers, from the AtIanta~ Georgia office of the Paul, Hastings, lanofsky and Walker LLP law finn (,'Paul, Hastings") was granted leave to appear pro hac vicc on behalfof the City.
2

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 3 of 122
City's motion to define the temporal scope ofPlaintiffs' Section 1983, Section 1981, and Title
VIr claims. During this period ofhard~fought litigation and several failed settlement attempts,
the parties invested countless hours in preparation and incurred millions of dollars in attorney fees and costs.
Finally, after over two years of discovery and the publicly reported payment ofover $1.5 million in legal fees to the City's outside counsel, the parties jointly requested a stay in the proceedings for the purpose of engaging in new settlement discussions and further requested that the Court appoint United States Senior District Judge Lee R. West of the Western District of Oklahoma as the settlement judge pursuant to Local Rule 16.2. At the parties' request, the Court stayed the proceedings.2
After nearly five months of settlement negotiations, on April 1, 2002, a proposed consent decree (the "April 2002 Decree") signed by Plaintiffs and the City was filed under seal. ThenMayor Susan Savage executed the April 2002 Decree on behalfof the City. The incoming mayor, \Villiam Lafortune, who took office later that day, received a copy of the Apri12002 Decree and a statement entitled "Final Condition ofSettIement." This statement provided Mayor LaFortune the opportunity to agree to the adoption of the proposed settlement or to reject it at any time on or before noon on Friday, AprilS, 2002.3
2 On January 9, 2002, the Court granted the motion to withdraw filcd by Paul, Hastings, the City's outside law fInn.
3 The statement provided in its entirety as follows: Notwithstanding the execution of all documents necessary to settle the
above-captioned case, the parties agree that there remains a final condition of 3

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 4 of 122
.'""",
On April 5, 2002, at a status hearing before the Court, counsel for the City notified the
Court that Mayor Lafortune had lodged no objection to the April 2002 Decree, and, at the joint
request of the parties, the Court gave its preliminary approval to the Apri12002 Decrec. On
April 24, 2002, the Court approved the parties' joint proposed notice of settlement, which was
then sent to class members and senred upon all Tulsa police officers and the FOP. The parties'
notice advised of a May 22, 2002 deadline for the filing of objections,to the April 2002 Decree,
and ofa fairness hearing set for June 14,2002. On May 2, 2002, nearly eight and onehhalfyears after the original complaint was filed,
the FOP moved to intervene in the case. On May 14, 2002, Plaintiffs objected to the FOP's
motion to intervene, arguing that the FOP's motion was untimely and that the FOP did not have a sutlicient interest in the case to intervene. The City responded that it did not oppose intervention but argued that, if the Court granted intervention, it should be limited and that the FOP should
settlement. Specifically, the settlement agreement will be effective upon the earlier of (i) a statement signed by incoming Mayor William Lafortune agreeing that the settlement shall become effective immediately, or (ii) the passage of time until noon on Friday, AprilS, 2002. That is, if Mayor William LaFortune does not file a statement of agreement under subpararaph (i), and does not othenvise object in the manner set forth bdow, the agreement will become' effective at noon on Friday, April 5, 2002.
By contrast, if incoming Mayor William LaFortune desires to render a nullity the settlement agreement and thereby continue the above captioned lawsuit, he may do so by executing the attached Objection 'to' Settlement and presenting it to the Court on Friday, AprilS, 2002.
The parties have been advised that the Court will conduct a hearing in this matter on Friday, AprilS, 2002, at 1:30 p.m. to receive a status report.
4

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 5 of 122
not be granted full rights as an intervening party. On May 22. 2002. the FOP filed a motion
requesting that the Court reject the April 2002 Decree, primarily on the grounds that it violated the FOP's rights as the "exclusive bargaining agent" for all TPD officers. The FOP was the only objector to the April 2002 Decree.
On June 13, 2002,4 the Court commenced extensive hearings on the fairness of the April 2002 Decree and the FOP's motion to intenrene. Additional hearings on the fairness of the April 2002 Decree were held on .Tuly 15, 16, and 17,2002. At the .Tuly 16, 2002 hearing, Mayor Lafortune testified that he would have preferred to have had more time to study the April 2002 Decree before having to make the decision to either agree to its adoption by the Court or to object. (7116/02 Tr. at 568-69, 591.) At the July 17, 2002 hearing, Thomas Rink, an officer of the TPD, testified that, at the behest of the FOP, he had, during working hours, compiled infonnation from the personnel files of African-American officers solely for the purpose of opposing the April 2002 Decree. (7/17/02 Tr. at 670-71.) Officer Rink had improperly compiled this infonnation from the officers' personnel records to which he had access in his capacity as manager of the TPD Resource Center. He further testified that he had provided the results of his work, not only to his immediate TPD supervisor, but also to other TPD personnel up the chain of command, including then-Chief ofPalice Ronald Palmer. Officer Rink testified that he had 110t been disciplined far his unauthorized use ofTPD personnel infonnation and that he did not
4 The fairness hearing had been moved from .Tunc 14, 2002 to June 13, 2002.
5

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 6 of 122
expect to be. (7117102 Tr. at 674.)' On July 17, 2002, based upon Mayor Lafortune's tentative testimony regarding the April
2002 Decree in its current fbnn, and the clear evidence that those who would be responsible for
enforcing the April 2002 Decree, including Officer Rink and others, lacked a commitment to its
successtul implementation, the Court detennined that it could not find that the April 2002 Decree was in the best interest of the community, except and un1ess the mayor and the City were prepared to give it their '\mequivocal" commitment. Accordingly, in order to give Mayor LaFortune a full opportunity to further consider the April 2002 Decree, the Court extended the date by which the mayor would be required to either object to or agree to the proposed decree until noon on August 16,2002.
On August 16, 2002, Mayor Lafortune and the City filed a statement withdrawing the City's support for the April 2002 Decree in its current fOnTI. Based on Mayor LaFortune's statement and the City's withdrawal from its joint motion to approve and adopt the proposed decree, the Court rejected the April 2002 Decree. The Court immediately returned the case to a "trial track" and referred to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the issue of developing a workable schedule that would be acceptable to the parties.
On September 3, 2002, pursuant to a hearing before Magistrate Judge McCarthy,6 the
5 Officer Rink had been subpoenaed to testify by the FOP. Because he appeared in Court
during working hours, however, Oflic·er Rink testified that the City would be paying him for his opinion testimony in opposition to the proposed decree. (7117/02 Tr. at 672.)
6 On August 21, 2002, Magistrate Judge McCarthy held a hearing to develop a proposed schedule.
6

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 7 of 122
Court entered a scheduling order to govern the proceedings leading up to a January 21, 2003 non-jury trial. Included in the scheduling order were deadlines for, filing responses and replies to all pending motions that were not fully briefed at the time the ease was stayed in November 2001 and deadlines for the parties to file additional dispositive motions and motions to de-certify the class. All-day hearings on all pending motions were scheduled for November 13 and 14, 2002.
On September 10, 2002, the Court granted the FOP's motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) over the objections of Plaintiffs and the City.' The Court tOlUld that the FOP satisfied the four-factor test for interventi,on articulated by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Coalition of ArizonalNew Mexico Counties for Stable Econ. Growth v. Dep't of the Interior, 100 F.3d 837, 840 (10th Cir. 1996).' First, the Court found that, notwithstanding the fact that the FOP had notice of the divergence of its interests from the City
7 After the April 2002 Decree was rejected, the City suggested that the FOP be allowed to participate in any future settlement conferences but "opposc[dl the FOP's full intervention as a party entitled to participate in all future proceedings, induding triaL" (Def. 's Supplemental Mem. in Resp. to Mot. to Intervene at 2.)
g The four-factor test for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) is as follows:
[AJn applicant may intervene as of right if: (1) the application is "timely"; (2) the
applicant claims an interest rdating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant may as a practical matter be impaired or impeded; and (4) the applicant's interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. Coalition of ArizonalNew Mexico Counties, 100 F.3d at 840 (internal quotations and citatiorls omitted).
7

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 8 of 122
since November 2001, the FOP's motion to intervene was timely.9 The Court found the motion to intervene timely because, after the Court's rejection oftbe April 2002 De("Tee, the case had returned to the November 2001 status guo ante, when it was stayed to facilitate settlement negotiations. Second, the Court found that, because certain remedies sought by Plaintiffs could affect the tenus and conditions of employment ofFOP members and arguably implicate certain provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement bernreen the City and the FOP (the "CBA"), the FOP had claimed an interest that was a subject of the action and that this interest might be impaired if the FOP was not allowed to intervene. Finally, the Court found that the City's and the FOP's interests were no longer aligned, such that the FOP's interests were not adequately
alI represented by the City. Thus, because it found that the FOP satisfied four fa(..iors of the
Coalition ofArizonalNewMexico test and the requirements for intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), the Court granted the FOP's motion to intervene.
On September 13, 2002, the City moved the Court to appoint a settlement judge to facilitate rencwed settlement negotiations between the parties. In its motion, the City stated that "the differences between the parties' respective draft consent decrees were not substantial," but that it was "apparent that the services of a settlement judge are required." (Dei's Application for a Settlement Conference at I.) At a hearing on September 16, 2002, the Court held the City'S motion in abeyance, pending Plaintiffs and the FOP joining in such a request.
9 The Court found that the FOP had notice of the settlement discussions and the possibility of settlement of the case from conversations with the City, the extensive public record tracking the progress of the case, and a November 2001 order staying the case. (9/10/02 Order at 10.)
8

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 9 of 122
On November 13 and 14,2002, the Court held heaiiiigs on certain pending motions, including, inter alia, Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the City's motion to sever the supervisory plaintiffs from the class, the City's and the FOP's separate motions to decertifY the class, the City's motion to define the temporal scope of Plaintiffs' Section 1983, Section 1981, and Title VII claims, and Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 2002 order granting the FOP's motion to intervene.
On November 13, 2002, the parties, including the FOP, jointly moved the Court to designate United States District Judge Claire V. Eagan as the settlement judge under the Northern District Local Rules. The parties specifically requested that a settlement conference be scheduled for November 26, 2002. On November 14, 2002, the Court granted the parties' motion and designated Judge Eagan settlement judge in the matter pursuant to Local Rille 16.2(c), succeeding Judgc West. (11114/02 Order at 1.)10 Beginning on November 21, 2002, Judgc Eagan met with the parties and their attorneys at various times leading up to extensive settlement negotiations between Plaintiffs, the City, and the FOP on November 26,2002.
On December 3, 2002, after nearly nine years oflitigation, Plaintiffs and the City filed a second Joint Motion for Approval and Adoption of the Consent Decree, which attached a new proposed consent decree (the "December 2002 Decree'!). Plaintiffs and the City also filed a joint motion requesting that the Court stay further proceedings pending the Court's consideration of
10 At the Court's request, the parties certified that their "Joint Application for a Settlement Conference, requesting Court-administered settlement negotiations, was made in
good faith and not for the purpose of delay in this case." (!! at 2.)
9

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 10 of 122
this new proposed decree. Plaintiffs' and the City's joint motion for approval of the proposed decree infonned the Court that the December 2002 Decree had not been agreed to by the FOP. (Joint Mot. for Approval and Adoption of the Consent Decree at 1.)
On December 5, 2002, the Court held a status hearing for the parties to preliminarily identifY any issues that needed to be addressed in conjunction with. the Coures consideration of the Joint Motion for Approval and Adoption of the Consent Decree and the related motion to stay the proceedings. Following the hearing, the Court directed the pruties to file a joint proposal as to how best to proceed to ensure the rights of all interested parties and to submit additional briefing on ''relevant authorities regarding the rights of intenrenor Lodge #93 of the Fraternal Order of Police [J in this case and the appropriate procedures by which the FOP's rights can be fully protected." (12/5/02 Order at 1.)"
On December 11, 2002, the Court held a second status conference to further address the issues raised by the December 2002 Decree and the motion to stay. At the hearing and in its briefs filed with the Court, the FOP argued that, because it has not consented to the December 2002 Decree and because the proposed decree may affect the rights of the union and its members, the Court does not have the authority to approve the settlement proposed by Plaintiffs and the City. The FOP further argued that the Court's September 10, 2002 order, which granted the FOP's motion to intervene, bestowed upon the FOP the power to block a settlement between
1J The Court's order did not stay the case, but extended the deadlines for filing motions
after-- in limine, pretrial disclosures, and an agreed pretrial order until a status hearing set for
December 11, 2002. 10

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 11 of 122
Plaintiffs and the City. On December 13, 2002, the Court found "that the FOP [did] not have a unilateral right to
reject the proposed settlement and to force Plaintiffs and the City to trial at this stage." (12/13/02 Order at 4.) The Court further found that the cases cited by the FOP in support ofits argument were "inapposite because they do not address whether a party who has intervened before a settlement is reached may force the settling parties to trial by objecting to the agreement, without
first demonstrating that its rights will be impaired by that agreement." ilil at 2 (emphasis in
original).) The Court explained that its September 10, 2002 order granting intervention did not grant the FOP the absolute power to unilaterally "veto" the proposed consent decree. 12 Accordingly, the Court struck the trial, which was then set for January 21,2003, and scheduled a
12 In this regard, the Court specifically stated as follows: First, the Court's Septcmb~r 10,2002 order, instead of granting the FOP broad veto power, merely responds to the City's suggestion that the FOP should not be granted intervenor starns because the City would protect the FOP's interests at future settlement conferences. Second, it is elemental that the Court's order must be construed in accordance with existing Supreme Court authority. As described above, in Local No. 93, thc Supreme Court expressly rejected the notion that an intervenor could veto a consent decree merely by withholding its consent. 478 U.S. at 529 ("Thus, while an intervenor is entitled to present evidence and have its objections heard at the hearings on whether to approve a consent decree, it does not have power to block the decree merely by withholding its consent.") (emphasis added). Therefore, even if, as the FOP apparently claims, the Court's September 10, 2002 order appeared to provide the FOP with the power to "veto" any settlement between Plaintiffs and the City, such a grant would be inconsistent with existing Supreme Court precedent. (12/13/02 Order at 4.)
II

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 12 of 122
fairness hearing tor consi,deration of the proposed December 2002 'Decree in"'its place,13 On December 16, 2002, the Court fonnally stayed the case and entered a scheduling order to govern the proceedings leading up to fairness hearings commencing on Jru1Umy 21, 2003.
On December 18, 2002, the Court approved the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Fairness Hearing, and Right to Object ("Notice of Proposed Settlement") proposed by Plaintiffs and the City. This notice was then sent to class members and served upon the FOP and all TPD officers.14 This notice advised of a January 16,2003 deadline for filing objections to the December 2002 Decree and of a fairness hearing set for January 21, 2003,
On January 8, 2003, the FOP filed the Objections of Lodge #93 of the Fraternal Order of Police to New Proposed Consent Decree (Docket No. 757) (hereinafter "FOP's Objections"). In its objections, the FOP argues that the December 2002 Decree should be rejected because it "violates the collective bargaining agreement (the 'CBA') between the FOP and the City ofTulsa [] and also in other ways tramples the rights of the FOP and its members." (FOP's Objections at I.) The FOP objects to the December 2002 Decree on three broad grounds: (1) it unilaterally obligates the police department to adopt and/or change policies that arc the subject ofmandatory bargaining and thus is an unfair labor practice under the FPAA and the CBA; (2) it violates the
13 The Court, citing Local No. 93, In!'! Assoc. of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U,S, 501 (1986) (hereinafter "Local No. 93"), specifically noted thaI "the FOP will be afforded full due process rights at the hearing through the opportunity to present objections to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence." (12113/02 Order at 5.)
14 As provided in the Court's December 16, 2002 scheduling order, this Notice of Proposed Settlement was posted on the City's Intranet beginning on December 13, 2002. On December 30, 2002, all TPD officers received the Notice of Proposed' Settlement with their paychecks.
12

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 13 of 122
Oklahoma Fire and Police Arbitration Act C'FPAA") and the CBA because it substitutes the Court for the required mandatory arbitration process; and (3) it violates principles offedcralism. On January 8, 2003, the FOP also filed the Motion of Lodge #93 of Fraternal Order o[Police ("FOP") For A Ruling On the Effect of the Consent Decree on the FOP and Its Members (Docket No, 759),
On January 16, 2003, consistent with the timing requirement provided in the Notice of Proposed Settlement, 2"14 FOP members and three Tulsa citizens submitted individual objections to the December 2002 Decree, which were filed on their behalf by the FOP, (FOP's Jan, 16, 2003 Certificate of Service.)!5 Of those 214 individual objections submitted by FOP members, two were from unnamed members of the Plaintiff class,16 On January 21,2003, at the Court's direction, the FOP filed a List of Objectors Wishing to Testify, Till:s list indicated that only one of the individual objectors, Officer Dianna Liedorff, desired to testify at the fairness hearings.
On January 21, 22, 27, 28, and 29, 2003, the Court conducted hearings on the fairness of
15 The Court notes that, according to the record, there are approximately 680 FOP members, (1129103 Tr, at 727:11-12), and the ''bargaining unit" consists of approximately 800 officers, (1129/03 Te. at 728:3-10).
In addition, the COllrt notes that two additional objections were filed by FOP members on January 171 2003. Although those objections were untimely filed under the requirements of the Notice of Proposed Settlement, the Court has nevertheless reviewed- and considered those objections in analyzing the proposed decree.
16 On January 16,2003, World Publishing Company filed a Motion to Intervene and Opposition to the Protective Order and Other Portion of the Settlement and Consent Decree (Docket No. 987). Although World-Publishing Company's motion contained objections to the proposed decree, the Court will address those objections in a separate order, concurrent with the entry of the protective order contemplated by the proposed decree.
13

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 14 of 122
the December 2002 Decrec.17 During the course ofthese hearings, Plaintiffs, the City, and the FOP called and cross-examined witnesses and presented evidence in support of their respective positions. In this regard, Plaintiffs and the City called the fo11owing witnesses who testified in support of the December 2002 Decree: Mayor Lafortune; Chief of Police David Been; Captain and named Plaintiff Walter Busby; Pittsburg Chief of Police Robert McNeilly; and Tulsa community leaders Milford Cart<;r, Weldon Tisdale, and Nancy Day, The FOP called the following witnesses who testified in opposition to the December 2002 Decree: FOP President Robert Jackson; TPD Sergeant David Brockman; TPD Officer and Plaintiff class member Demita Kinard. Officer Dianna Liedorff also appeared and infonned the Court that she did not desire to supplement her written objections with testimony.18
II Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[aJ class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). A district court is empowered to approve a proposed settlement of a class action if the proposed settlement is "fair, reasonable and adequate." Gottlieb v. Wiles, 11 F.3d 1004,1014 (10th Cir.
17 '"The hearing on January 28, 2003 was devoted, in part, to issues regarding World Publishing Company's motion to intervene and objections to the proposed deeree.
18 At the hearing on January 21, 2003) the Court infotmed the FOP that each written objection would be considered "as ifit were a sworn good-faith statement ofwhat they believed and [wouldJ be weighted absolutely as a direct statement as ifit were testified so from the stand." (1/21/03 Tr. at 11 :9-12:3.) The Court's position in this regard, as articulated at the hearing, is consistent with the general principle that "[iJt is unnecessary for objectors to appear personally at the settlement hearing in order to have their written objections considered by the court." See Howard B. Newberg and Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 11.56, at 11-137 (3d ed, 1992).
14

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 15 of 122
1993) (citing Jones v. Nuclear Pharmacy, Inc., 741 F.2d 322, 324 (10th Cir. 1984)). In detennitling whether the proposed settlement meets the standard for approval, the Court must
first he concerned with the protection of the rights of the passive dass members. See 7B Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Feder," Practice and Procedure § 1979.1 (2d ed. 1986 & 2001
Supp.); see also Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 69 n.10 (2d Cir. 1982) (stating that trial
judge is "guardian for class members") (citing cases). The Court is also required to "ensure that the agreement is not illegal, a product of collusion~ or against the public interest." United States v. Colo., 937 F.2d 505, 509 (10th Cir. 1991).
The Court of Appeals tor the Tenth Circuit has identified the following four factors that a district court should consider in detcnnining whether a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate:
(1) Whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) \Vhether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of
the litigation in doubt; (3) Whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the merc possibility of
future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and (4) The judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Gottlieb, 11 F.3d at 1014 (qlloting Jones, 741 F.2d at 324); Rutter & Wilbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 314 F.3d 1180, 1188 (IOtll Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). "It is the responsibility of the proponents of the settlement to provide sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the settlement is fair ...." Gottlieb, 11 F.3d at 1015; see also Jones, 741 F.2d at 325 (citations omitted). Plaintiffc; and the City urge the Court to adopt and approve the December 2002 Decree, arguing that the proposed decree meets the requirements for "fairness') set forth in Gottl1eb.
15

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 16 of 122
(Joint Mot. for Approval and Adoption of the Consent Decree at 1-2.) The Court will address each factor in turn below. A. Whether the Proposed Settlement Agreement Was Fairly and Honestly Negotiated
The first factor for the Court to consider in determining the "fairness" of the proposed settlement is "whether the proposed settlement agreement was fairly and honestly negotiated." Gottlieb, 11 F.3d at 1014 (citations omitted). The fairness ofthc negotiating process is to be examined "in light oflhe experience of counsel, the vigor with which the case was prosecuted, and [any] coercion or collusion that may have marred the negotiations themselves.)' Malchman v. Davis, 706 F.2d 426, 433 (2d Cir. 1983). In Wilkerson v. Martin Marietta Corp.. the district court found that the proposed consent decree was fairly and honestly negotiated where "[t]he completeness and intensity of the mediation process, coupled with the quality and reputations of the Mediators, demonstrate a commitment by the parties to a reasoned process for conflict resolution that took into account the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases and the inherent vagaries oflitigation." 171 F.R.D. 273, 285 (D. Colo. 1997).
The Court finds that the parties' positions in this racia1 discrimination lawsuit have been vigorously litigated for over nine years. The parties' zealous advocacy in support oftheir respective positions is demonstrated by the cOlmtless motions~ responses, and replies on both substantive and procedural issues filed by the parties since January 1994. As of the date of this order, the docket contains more than 1,000 entries. (See Civil Docket fo:r Case No. 94-CV-39 (N.D. Okla.).)
Moreover, the Court observes that the parties have engaged in intense discovery efforts 16

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 17 of 122
aimed at proving their respective positions. During the discovery phase of the case, Plaintiffs and the City conducted over one hundred depositions and witness interviews, (11119102 Order at 16; FOP's Resp. to Sept. 18 Order, Ex. G), and it has been represented that approximately 300,000 pages of documents were obtained through discovery (Resp. of Lodge #93 of the
Fraternal Order of Police ("FOP") to Ct. Order of Sept. 18. 2002 at 11 yo The Court finds that
this extensive pre-trial discovery enabled the parties to fully evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the class claims and defenses before entering into their final settlement negotiations.
The Court further finds that the December 2002 Decree was the result of the November 2002 court-administered settlement negotiations conducted under the auspices of United States District Judge Claire V. Eagan. Judge Eagan is well-recognized in the legal community for her experience, qualifications, and integrity. Her ability and fairness are unquestioned. Indeed, the parties expressly requested that she conduct the final settlement negotiations. Moreover, the Court finds that the settlement negotiations conducted under her guidance were arms-length negotiations among three parties of equal bargaining power, and that all parties to the case participated in those negotiations.
Most significantly, however, the Court finds that neither the FOP nor any member of the Plaintiffclass has objected to the fairness of the negotiations. See Wilkerson, 17 J F.R.D. at 284
19 Indeed, as of January 2002, Plaintiffs alone had incurred more than $42,000 in copying
costs. (Pis.' Resp. to Lodge #93 of the Fraternal Order o{PoIiC'e"'s' Mot. to Compel Deps. and to
Produc. Docs., filed May 16,2002, Ex. D.) 17

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 18 of 122
(finding negotiations fair and honest where no objector alleged or advanced any facts or evidence of fraud, collusion, or overreaching with consent decree). Altllough'the FOP was given a full opportunity to object to the proposed decree and did object to the proposoo decree on other grounds, the FOP did not object to the December 2002 Decree on the ground -that the process that led to settlement was unfair. (See FOP's Objections; 119103 Tr. at 9: 19~ 19:9; Resp. of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #93 ("FOP") to Questions of Judge Sven Erik Holmes on Jan. 9, 2003.)20 For these reasons, the Court finds that the December 2002 Decree was fairly and honestly negotiated. B. Whether Serious Questions of Law and Fact Exist That Place the Ultimate Outcome of
the Litigation in Doubt Thc second Gottlieb factor for the Court to analyze in considering the "fairness" of the
or proposed decree is whether there arc serious questions law and fact that place the ultimate
outcome of the litigation in doubt. Gottlieb, 11 F.3d at 1014. Bascd upon a careful review of the record since March 1995,21 which reflects the
strategies, positions, and certain aspects of the evidence to be addressed by the parties at trial, the Court finds that serious questions of both fact and law exist that render the outcome of the
litigation uncertain. First, the Court finds that the vigorous prosecution ofthis lawsuit by the parties in the nine years since the case was filed, as described above, demonstrates the parties'
20 In fact, in reliance upon the FOP's statement that it did not object to the fairness of the settlement process, Plaintiffs and the City withdrew their motion to call the settlement judge, Judge Eagan, as a witness at the fairness hearings. (1/9103 Tr. at 19:11·21 :6.)
21 This case was transferred to the undersigned on March 7, 1995. 18

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 19 of 122
uncertainty with respect to the outcome of this litigation. Second, immediately before the ease was again stayed for settlement negotiations on November 14, 2002, the Court heard argument on a number of substantive motions pending before it, including: Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment; the City's motion to sever the supervisory plaintiffs from the class; the City's and the FOP's separate motions to decertify the class; the City's motion to defmc the temporal scope ofPlaintiffs' Section 1983, Section 1981, and Title VII claims; and Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 2002 order granting the FOP's motion to intervene. Because the case has been stayed since the parties' argument at the November 13 and 14,2002 hearings, the Court has not entered a ruling on any of these motions, and such rulings would significantly impact the parties' respective cases if the matter were to proceed to trial. The Court finds that the fact that these substantive motions have not yet been decided supports the conclusion that the outcome of the litigation is in doubt.22 Finally, the Court observes that Plaintiffs would have borne a heavy burden of proving their claims ifthis case were to proceed to trial. For these reasons, the Court concludes that the outcome if this litigation is in doubt. C. Whether The Value of an Immediate Remedy Outweighs the Possibility of Future Relief
After Protracted and Expensive Litigation The third Gottlieb factor for the Court to consider is "whether the value of an immediate remedy outweighs the possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation." Gottlieb, 11 F.3d at 1014. The Court of Appeals in Gottlieb held tha.t courts, in applying this
22 The Court notes that the issues raised in these motions are not the only unsettled issues in this lawsuit.
19

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 20 of 122
factor, should weigh the "value" of settlement against the additional risk and costs associated with continued litigation:
Under the third ... factor, that value is to be weighed not against thc net worth of the defendant, but against the possibilIty of some greater relief at a later time, taking into consideration the additional risks and costs that go hand in hand with protracted litigation, Id. at 1015. First, the Court finds that the value of settlement for the City includes the curtailment of the legal costs of defending this action. See Local No. 93,478 U,S. at 528 ("A consent decree is primarily a means by which parties settle their disputes without having to bear the financial and other costs oflitigating."); Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 87 (1981) ("Settlement agreements may [] be predicated on an express or implied condition that the parties would, by their agreement, be able to avoid the costs and uncertainties of litigation."), It has been publicly reported that, during 2002, the City paid S1.5 million to its outside law firm, Paul, Hastings, for services rendered in connection with this litigation and that the City is potentially liable for an additional $691,000 to the finn for work performed during that period.23 See Curtis Killman, Law Finn Suing City for Fees, TL"LSA WORLD, Apr. 23, 2002, at
23 Although Paul, Hastings did not file an appearance in this case until February 2001, it has been publicly reported that the $2 million in fees were incurred for representation that occurred bet\ve-en April 1998 and January 2002. See Curtis Killman, Law Finn Suing City for Fees, TULSA WORLD, Apr. 23, 2002, at AI. On May 14,2002, following the withdrawal of Paul, Hastings, Joel Wohlgemuth, of Norman, Wohlgemuth, Chandler & Dowdell ("Norman, Wohlgemuth"), filed an appearance in this case as outside counsel on behalf of the City. The Court anticipates that, in light of the extensive proceedings during the past twelve months, the
fees incurred by the City for Noman, Wohlgemuth's representation may also be substantial.
20

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 21 of 122
AI; P. J. Lassek, City Releases Disputed invoices, TuLSA WORLD, Mar. 22, 2002, at AI. In this regard, former Mayor Susan Savage testified at the JW1e 2002 fairness hearings with respect to the April 2002 Decree that she considered the "highly publicized" cost oflitigation when deciding to enter into the previous decree. (6/13/02 Tr. at 18:15-19: 10.) Similarly, Mayor LaFortune testified at the January 21, 2003 hearing that he also considered the rising attorney fees as a factor in detennining that the December 2002 Decree was cost effective. (1/21103 Tr. at 51:6-14.)
The Court finds that, based on the record, a trial of this lawsuit would have been lengthy and complex. (See, e.g., PIs,' Prelim. Witness List, filed Oct. 7, 2002 (identifying 104 prospective witnesses); City's Prelim. Witness List, filed Oct. 7, 2002 (identifying 55 prospective 'Witnesses).) Clearly, a trial and the likelihood of further protracted litigation, regardless of the outcome, would have been very expensive for all parties. In this regard, Mayor Lafortune testified at the fairness hearings that, in determining that the proposed decree is cost effective, he specifically considered the fact that the largest amount of attorney fees in this case would be generated in the weeks leading up to trial. (1/21/03 Tr. at 51 :6-14.)
Second, the Court finds that the value of settlement for the City also includes the opportunity to compromise ~rith Plaintiffs regarding the relief requested. Carson, 450 U.S. at 87. It is possible that, if Plaintiffs were to have tried the case and received all the relief rcql~ested in the second amended complaint, the City could have been liable for up to $17 million in damages to Plaintiffs, in addition to attorney fees and costs.
Third, the Court finds that the value of settlement for Phiintiffs fnc1udes -a comparatively 21

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 22 of 122
expeditious resolution of this matter and relief from the burden of the costs of further litigation in this case.24 To date, Plaintiffs have received nO relief whatsoever in this case. After over nine years of litigation, including several failed attempts at settlement, Plaintiffs have represented to the Court that they are satisfied that obtaining some, but not all, of the relief requested through settlement outweighs the "mere possibility" of greater relief at a tda1 in the future.
Fourth, the Court finds that the value of settlement in this case for both Plaintiffs and the City includes the avoidance of any uncertain future remedy. If this case were to proceed to trial on the merits and Plaintiffs were to prevail, both Plaintiffs and the City may become subject to a Court-imposed remcdy that either one or both parties would find undesirable. Carson, 450 U.S. at 87 (noting that settlement agreement may be predicated, in part, on condition that parties would avoid uncertainties of litigation). Captain Busby testified at the fairness hearings that this uncertainty - the uncertainty of a "forced" solution - is part of the reason that he believes the December 2002 Decree is a better option than proceeding to trial. (1/22/03 Tr. at 278: 17-22.) The Court finds that the uncertainty of any future remedy that could be imposed by the Court weighs in favor of the agreed settlement between Plaintiffs and the City. For these reasons, the Court finds that the value of an immediate resolution significantly outweighs the possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation. D. Whether The Parties to the Decree Believe It Is Fair and Reasonable
The fourth Gottlieb factor for the Court to evaluate in considering -the proposed decree is
24 In matching the efforts that the City employed to defend this case, it is likely that Plaintiffs also have expended significant resources, including substantial attorney fees and costs.
22

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 23 of 122
whether the parties believe the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. Gottlieb, 11 F.3d at 1014. The Court finds, at the outset, that the fact that the lead representatives of the Plaintiff class and the official representatives of the City are signatories to the proposed decree establishes that they believe it to be fair and reasonable. Named Plaintiffs Captain Busby, Derrek Lewis, Marvin Blades, and Tyrone LyIUl signed the proposed decree on behalf or'the Plaintiff class, and Mayor LaFortune signed the proposed decree on behalfof the City.
Moreover, on behalf of Plaintiffs, Captain Busby testified at the January 2003 fairness hearings that the December 2002 De("Tee is the "best resolution" to this litigation because it is "amicable" and because both Plaintiffs and the City have agreed to its terms and "have committed themselves to implementing [it]." (1/22/03 Tr. at 279:15-19.) Captain Busby also stated that his testimony concerning the April 2002 Decree is "in large part" still applicable to the current proposed decree. (l!l at 268:12-20.) At the July 2002 fairness hearings regarding the Apri12002 Decree, Captain Busby testified that he believed the prior proposed decree was fair to all members of the Plaintiff class and to all TPD officers. (7/15/02 Tr. at 174:6-10, 175:1-5.)"
At the fairness hearing on January 21,2003, both Mayor LaFortune and Chief David Been testified that they fully support the December 2002 Decree. (1/21103 Tr. at 24: 15-18; id. at 147:5-8.) Mayor LaFortune testified that, as the mayor of the City, he "unequivocally" supports
25 The parties have agreed that the testimony adduced at the June IDld July 2002 fairness heatings would be part of the record for the January 2003 fairness hearings. (See PIs.' and Def.
City of Tulsa's Joint Designations of Test. From the Proceedings Concerning the First Proposed
Consent Decree; Designation ofTr. By Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #93; see also 12/5102 Tr. at 7:20-24.)
23

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 24 of 122
the proposed decree. ad. at 24:15-18.) He also testified that he bfJieves the proposed decree is "fair to all parties." ad. at 25:7.) Likewise, Chief Been testified that he believes the December
2002 Decree is the "best possible way" to further the cause of the TPD. (!d. at 147:5-11.) In addition to considering the judgment of the parties -with respect to the proposed
settlement, the Court should also "defer to the judgment of experienced counsel who has competently evaluated the strength of his proofs." See Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 922-23 (6th Cir. 1983). See also Lopez v. City of Santa Fc, 206 F.R.D. 285, 292 (D. N.M. 2002) ("[The] trial court is entitled to rely upon the judgment of experienced counsel for the parties .... Indeed, the trial judge, absent fraud) collusion, or the like, should hesitate to substitute its own judgment for that ofcounsel." (citation omitted)). In this case, Plaintiffs' counsel, Louis Bullock, and the City's counsel, Larry Simmons and Joel Wohlgemuth, are also signatories to the December 2002 Decree. All three of these attorneys are experienced trial lawyers, with extensive experience in fedcra1litigation, including civil rights matters. Indeed, this Court, as well as the entire legal community, has the highest respect for the ability and wisdom of each of these attorneys. Thus, in detennining whether to approve the December 2002 Decree, the Court takes into consideration the fact that the parties' experienced and capable lawyers have detennined that the settlement is both fair and reasonable.
E. Objections By Class Members
Two members ofthe Plaintiff class, Demita Kinard and Wendell Franklin, objected to the
24

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 25 of 122
December 2002 Decrcc.26 First, the Court commends the objecting class members for coming forward and voicing their views with respect to the proposed decree. See Lopez, 206 F.R.D. at 292 (commending objecting class members for filing objections). As the district court in Lopez explained, '''[i]t is of utmost importance for the Court to be knowledgeable of any objections by class members in order to make a fully informed detennination that has such a binding effect on the entire class as a whole." rd.
The Court notes, however, that the fact that some class members object to the proposed settlement docs not itself prevent the Court from approving the agreement. 7B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1797.1 (citations omitted); see also In re S. Ohio Correctional Fa<:ility, 173 F.R.D. 205, 214 (S.D. Ohio 1997) (citations omitted). A relatively small number of class members who object to a proposed decree may, in fact, be an indication of the settlement's fairness. See Howard B. Newberg and Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 11.48, at 11-116 (3d ed, 1992) (citations omitted); see also Am. Employers Ins. Co. v. King Res. Co" 556 F.2d 471, 478 (lOth Cir. 1977) (finding thatthe fact thatthere was only one objector was "of striking significance and 'import").
The Court has seriously considered the objections raised by the two members of the Plaintiff c1ass to detcnnine whether those objections suggest substantial reasons why the proposed decree might be unfair. 7B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice
26 Ms. Kinard testified at the fairness hearings on behalf of the FOP in opposition to the
waS proposed decree. (1/27/03 Tr. at 428: 10 - 458:4.) Mr. Fnmklin did not testilY, °bill notified
that the opportunity was available to him. 25

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 26 of 122
and Procedure § 1979.1 ("The court must independently evaluate whether the objc(.iions being raised suggest serious reasons why the proposal might be unfair."); Wi11iams, 720 F.2d at 923 ("Objections raised by members of the Plaintiff class should be carefully considered."); see also Lopez, 206 F.R.D. at 292. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Ms. Kinard's and Mr. Franklin's objections do not provide a sufficient basis for denying approval of the December 2002 Decree.
Both Ms. Kinard and Mr. Franklin object to the December 2002 Decree on the stated basis that the allegations of discrimination set forth in the second am.;::nded complaint are untrue and cannot be proven. (See 1/27/03 Tr. at 457:7-23; W. Franklin's Obj. to Proposed Settlement and Consent Decree.)27 In evaluating the fairness of the settlement, however, courts are not to decide the merits of the case or resolve unsettled legal questions. Carson, 450 U.S. at 88; Gottlieb, 11 F.3d at 1015 (finding that while courts have an "independent duty" to analyze the evidence "[i]ndependent analysis does not mean ... that the district court must conduct a foray into the wilderness in search of evidence that might undermine the conclusion that the settlement is fair."). Thus, because a decision on the merits ofth1s case is inappropriate in detcnnining whether the December 2002 Decree is fair and reasonable, the Court overrules Ms. Kinard's and Mr. Franklin's objections on this ground.
Ms. Kinard and Mr. Franklin further object to the December 2002 Decree on the stated
27 Ms. Kinard also objects to Section 10.1 of the proposed decree because it "makes the assumption that the Black Officers Coalition is currently an asset." (D. Kinard's Obj. to Proposed Settlement and Consent Decree at 2.)
26

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 27 of 122
basis that the proposed decree includes the implementation of various policies and practices that are currently in place within the TPD, (D.Xinard's Ohj, to p'roposed Settlement and Consent Decree at 1-2; W, Franklin's Ohj, to Proposed Settlement and Consent Decree at 1.)'23 In this regard, Ms, Kinard specifically identified tw-o provisions of the December 2002 Decree that she believes are overlapping with current TPD practices: (1) Specialty Assignment Training; and (2) the Career Development section of the police aeademy,29 Mr. Franklin did not specifically identify any provisions he believes are overlapping.
The Court finds that, as a general proposition, the fact that certain provisions in the December 2002 Decree memorialize in writing current TPD practices is not a sufficient basis upon which to sustain an objection to the proposed decree. Therefore, the Court 'finds that, with respect to the specific provisions identified by Ms, Kinard, a degree of overlap of those provisions with current TPD policies and prac..iices is not a material basis for rejecting the
28 The Court notes that, at the fairness hearings before the Court, Ms, Kinard testified that, in her opinion, the proposed decree neither hurts nor helps the TPD. (1/27/03 Tr. at 455:1416.)
29 In her objection, Ms, Kinard stated as follows: Specialty Assignment Training is already in placc. Upon being accepted 10 detective Division and many"ofthe undercover positions, the individual is given
and" training to acquaint him or her with the special needs funciiori'ing'(lfihe'unit, * • •
Section 5.9 addresses a Career Development section of the academy. Officer Gustafson c1.1ITently coordinates training for the Department. Officers who are interested in developing a particular aspect of their career, have the opportunity to do so now " .. (D. Kinard's Obj. to Proposed Settlement and Consent DeC-Tee at 2.)
27

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 28 of 122
December 2002 Decree. Accordingly, the Court ovenu1es Ms. Kinard's and Mr. Franklin's objections on these grounds.'30
Ms. Kinard further objects to Section 5,5 of the proposed decree, which addresses the issue of recruiting for specialty positions. (D. Kinard's Obj. to Proposed Settlement and Consent Decree at 2.) Ms. Kinard explains that, "[iJfit were not for the active recruiting efforts of many ofthe supervisors, they would not have personnel that would fulfill their needs." (ld.)
Section 5.5 provides that the City shall adopt and implement a policy "prohibiting those in the chain of command of positions being filled from directly or indirectly recruiting persons to apply for a specialty assigruncnf' other than through the TPD's current process, which is memorialized in Section 5.2 of the December 2002 Decree. (December 2002 Decree § 5.5.) While the Court understands that Section 5.5 could affect recruiting for specialty assignments such that, in some cases, recruiting may be more difficult, the Court, nevertheless, finds that this provision is not meant to serve as a blatant prohibition on recruitment. Instead, Section 5.5 is intended to prohibit the inherent conflict of interest that arises from an individual in the chain of command having a pre-disposition in favor of a particular applicant by virtue of having recruited that individual. (See December 2002 Decree § 5.5; see also PIs.' & City's Joint Post-Hearing Brief at 37 (citing 1122/03 Tr. at 270:1-5).) Section 5.5 is an cfrort to ensure a decision-making
30 The Court obselV'es that the FOP's objections to the December 2002 Decree are inconsistent with this objection asserted by Ms. Kinard and Mr. FraDklin. Unlike Ms. Kinard and Mr. Franklin, the FOP contends that the proposed decree contains new policies and practices and that, because these new policies and practices should be subject to the collective bargaining process, the proposed decree should be rejected.
28

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 29 of 122
process for specialty assignments that is both open and fair. (!Q)
Mr. Franklin further objects to the December 2002 Decree on the basis that the "opt-out" procedures were unfairly presented. (yV. Franklin's Obj. to Proposed Settlement and Consent Decree at 1.) In his objection, Mr. Franklin explains that, shortly after completing the police academy, he received a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the lawsuit and that this letter contained a form that he could complete to "opt-out" of the Plaintiff class. (!QJ Mr. Franklin explains that he did not read the letter in its entirety and, therefore, did not know that he was
included in the lawsuit by virtue of his failure to return the opt-out fonn. (lYJ To the extent that
Mr. Franklin is asserting that, had he read the letter informing him of the opt-out procedures, he would have done so, this is not a sufficient basis for rejecting the proposed decree. To the extent Mr. Franklin is making the broader assertion that the opt-out provisions were unclear or unfair, the Court notes that only two members of the Plaintiff class have come forward and objected to the proposed dccrec and that only Mr. Franklin has objected to the opt-out procedures. Accordingly, because there is nothing in the record, other than Mr. Franklin's general statements in his written objection, indicating that the opt-out procedures were infinn, the Court overrules Mr. Franklin's objection on this ground.
1II
I-laving found that the proposed settlement satisfies the Gottlieb factors, the Court must detennine whether the December 2002 Decree violates any contractual or legal rights of a nonconsenting third party. Local No. 93, 478 U.S. 50t. See also UIlited States v. City ofHialeah, 140 F.3d 968, 973 (11th Cir. 1998) ("The district court has the responsibility to insure that a
29

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 30 of 122
consent decree is not '"t.mlawful, unreasonable, or inequitable. '''). In its objections, the FOP argues that the December 2002 Decree should be rejected because it violates the union's contractual and legal rights under both Oklahoma law and the CBA with the City. (FOP's Objections at 1-2.)
In Local No. 93, the Supreme Court held that a district court was not barred from entering a consent decree over the objection of the intervening union where the consent decree did not bind the union to act or refrain from acting, did not impose any legal duties or obligations on the union, and did not purport to resolve any claims asserted by the union. Local No. 93,478 U.S. at 528-29. In that case, Plaintiff, an organization of black and Hispanic firefighters, sued the city of Cleveland, alleging that the city's examination and other promotion practices discriminated against minority firefighters. Local No. 93, 478 U.S. at 507-509. Plaintiff and the city reached a settlement of the litigation that involved the imposition of racial quotas on promotions. Vlhen presented with the proposed consent decree, the district court deferred a decision on its approval because the negotiations leading to the proposed d(A..Tee did not include the intervening firefighters union. rd. Counsel for all three parties then participated in hours of "intensive negotiations" under a magistrate judge'S supervision and agreed to a revised decree. However, submission of the revised deeree to the district court was made contingent upon approval by the union membership, and the union members "overwhelmingly rejected the proposal." Id.
Plaintiff and the city of Cleveland, without the support of the union, then filed a second proposed consent decree and moved for its approval. The court approved and adopted the consent decree "as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of the claims raised in [the] action"
30

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 31 of 122
and overruled the union's objections. Id. at 512 (citations omitted). The Supreme Court, in
approving and adopting the bilateral consent decree, held as follows:
Local 93 and the United States also challenge the validity of the consent decree on the grOlmd that it was entered without the consent of the Union. They take the position that because the Union was permitted to intervene as afright, its consent was required before the court could approve a consent decree. This argument misconceives the Union's tights in the litigation.
A consent decree is primarily a means by which parties settle their disputes without having to bear the financial and other costs of litigating. It has never been supposed that one party - whether an original party, a party that was joined later, or an intervenor - could preclude other parties from settling their own disputes
and thereby withdrawing from litigation. Thus, while an intervenor is entitled to
present evidence and have its objections heard at the hearings on whether to approve a consent decree, it does not have power to block the decree merely by withholding its consent. Here, Local 93 took full advantage of its opportunity to participate in the District Court's hearings on the consent decree. It was permitted to air its objections to the reasonableness of the decree and to introduce relevant evidence; the District Court carefully considered those objections and explained why it was rejecting them. Accordingly, "the District Court gave the union all the process that [it] was due ...."
Of course, parties who choose to resolve litigation through settlement may not
dispose of the claims ofa third party, and afortiori may not impose duties or
obligations on a third party, without that party's agreement. A court's approval of a consent decree between some of the parties therefore eannot dispose ofthe valid claims ofnonconsenting intervenors; if properly raised, these claims remain and may be litigated by the intervenor. And, of course, a court may not enter a consent decree that imposes obligations on a party that did not consent to the decree. However, the consent decree entered here does not bind Local 93 to do or not to do anything. It imposes no legal duties or obligations on the Union at all; only the parties to the decree can be held in contempt of court for failure to comply with its terms. Moreover, the consent decree does not purport to resolve any claims the Union might have under the Fourteenth Amendment, or as a matter of contract.
478 U.S. 528-29 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Local No. 93, if the Court finds that the
31

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 32 of 122
December 2002 Decree adver~~ly affects the rights of a non-consenting third-party, it may not approve the agreement without a linding ofliability. Local No. 93, 478 O.S. 529; Hialeah, 140 F.3d at 976 ("The rule is that '[t]hose who seck affinnative remedial goals that would adversely affect other parties must demonstrate the propriety of such relief.' Such a demonstration requires a trial on the merits ... and it cannot be accomplished in a consent decree proceeding if the rights of a nonconsenting third party are affected.") (citations omitted). But see Lelsz v. Kavanagh, 783 F. Supp. 286 (N.D. Tcx. 1991) ("[AJ number of courts have explicitly held that an intervenor's power to oppose a settlement, even when its interests are affected, is limited to the right to air its objections to the reasonableness of the settlement and to introduce evidence.") (citing Kirkland v. N.Y. State Dep't ofCorr. Servs., 711 F.2d 1117, 1125-28 (2d Cir. 1983); EEOC v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 556 F.2d 167,173-74 (3d Cir. 1977)).
As noted above, the FOP, in its objections, asserts that the December 2002 Decree should be rejected because it violates the union's contractual and legal rights under the CBA and the Oklahoma Fire and Police Arbitration Act (the "FPAA"), and because entry ofthe proposed decree would violate principles of federalism. (FOP's Objections at 1-2.) The FOP maintains that, because the proposed decree violates its rights, the December 2002 Decree cannot be approved without a trial on the merits. (Td.)31 Thus, before the Court may approve the proposed
31 The FOP, citing Sanguine v. U.S. Dep'! ofInterior, 798 F.2d 389 (lOth Cir. 1986), appears to be arguing that, even if the Court finds that the December 2002 Decree qoes not affect its legal or contractual rights, the FOP is, nevertheless entitled to a trial because they are not a party to the proposed settlement. The Court, however, finds as a matter of law that Sanguine does not stand for this proposition. In Sanguine, the issue on appeal was whether the district eourt abused its discretion by setting aside the consent decree it had entered before the
32

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 33 of 122
decree, it must fIrst determine whether the Decemb,e:r 2002 ,Decr~ impermissibly affects the
contractual and legal rights of the FOP, and whether it implicates any federalism concerns.32
intervening tribal members were granted intervention. Sanguine, 798 F.2d at 391. Because the intervening tribe was not a party when the consent decree was entered, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that the intervenors were not adequately represented prior to the entry of the decree and affinned the djstrict eourt's decision to set aside the prior judgment. Id. In this case, the FOP had not only been granted intervention but had also participated in settlement negotiations before Judge Eagan when Plaintiffs and the City agreed to the proposed decree. Therefore, because the facts of Sanguine are distinguishable from ~e facts in the instant case and because Sanguine must be construed in a~cordance with the Supreme Court's opinion in Local No. 93, the Court finds that Sanguine, does not require a trial,?n the merits ifthe Court finds that the December 2002 Decree does not impair the FOP's contractual or legal rights under the CBA or Oklahoma law.
32 The Court notes that, in the context of reviewing a proposed consent decree, the question of whether the proposed agreement violates the contractual rights of others is a question of law for the court. Hialeah, 140 F 3d at 973 (citations omittcd). "It is difficult to envision an issue more purely legal than that of whether one written agreement, the consent decree, conflicts with another written compact, the existing colIective bargaining agreement." Td. (quoting United States v. City of Miami. 664 F.2d 435. 451 n.7 (Fonner 5th Cir. 1981) (en bane) (Gee. J.• concurring in part and dissenting in part)). In this regard, during a statu's hearIng before the . Court, counscl for the FOP acknowledged that the Court may properly decide, as a matter oflaw, whether the proposed consent decree violates the CBA:
THE COURT: ... 1understand that at any fairness hearing, Eke the fairness hearing that has occurred previously in connection with the earlier consent decree, that you'll have full opportunity to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, adduce evidence and so fClrth, and iliat will not be in any way confined to whether or not there's a violation ofthe Collective Bargaining Agreemcnt.
This is really just a very narrow question, and that is, insofaras there is a claim that the Collective Bargaining Agreement is violated and thus the rights of the FOP are infringed upon, is that something that can be resolved as a matter oflaw, as indicated in Hialeah and the City of Miami, or is that something that, in addition to other [] claims, would also require adducing evidence?
MR. ROGERS: I think it can be revolved [sic] now as a mattcr oflaw, but if you do not agree with that, we think we can show through evidence that that evidence will show it does violate it.
33

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 34 of 122
A. The December 2002 Decree Does Not Vi,olate tile FOP's Rights as "Exclusive Bargaining Agent" The FPAA provides that members of the police department in any municipality may be
afforded ''well-recognized rights oflabor such as the right to organize, to be represented by a collective bargaining representative of their choice and ,the right to bargain collectively concerning wages, hours and other tel1l1s and conditions of employment." OKLA. STAT. tit. 11, § 51-10l.A. The eBA between the City and the FOP specifically incorporates these rights and also provides that "Lodge #93, Fraternal Order of Police" is the "exclusive bargaining agent" for all TPD employees other than the Chief of Police, one officer designated by the Chief, and civilian employees. (CBA Art. 1, § 1.1; CBA Art. 9, § 9.8.)33 There are approximately 800 officers in the "bargaining unit" represented by the FOP. (1/29/03 Tr. at 728:3-10.)
The FOP argues that the December 2002 Decree should he rejected because the City does not have the unilateral right to adopt and implement any policy that touches upon a ''mandatory
(12/11102 Tr. at 22: 13-23:6.) 33 Section 9.8 of the CBA provides that: Employer agrees that under [the FPAA] the City and the Lodge are the only parties which may legally and appropriately confer, negotiate and enter into agreements on matters which relate to wages, hours and other conditions ofemployment as provided in the [FPAA} and the collective bargaining agreemen~ covering all employees.
(CBA Art. 9, § 9.8.)
34

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 35 of 122
subject ofbargaining."34 The FOP further claims .that, under the "Prevailing Rights" provision of the CBA, (CBA Art. 11, § 11.3), and the FPAA, the City may not change any "rule, regulation, fiscal procedures, working conditions, departmental practices or manner of conducting operation and administration" of the TPD without the agreement of the FOP or impasse arbitration. (FOP's Objections at 15-16 (citing OKLA. STAT. tit. 11, § 51-111).)35 The FOP argues that thc December 2002 Decree changes certain TPD policies and practices in violation of the union's entitlements under the prevailing tights provision of the CBA and the FPAA
Plaintiffs andthe City contend that the December 20Q2 Decr~e,does nqt intrll~~_ upon the FOP's rights as exc1usive bargaining agent because, although the proposed decree will change certain policies and practices of the TPD, entering into and implementing the December 2002 Decree is a legitimate exercise ofthe City's authority under the "Management Rights and Responsibilities" provision, set forth in Article 2 of the CBA. (PIs.' & City's Joint Rcsp. to Objections at 3-11.)
Thc management rights provision in Article 2 sets forth .certain_~cti!?ns.th~t are, solely
34 "Mandatory subjects of bargaining" include "wages, hours, and other tenus and conditions of employment." 20 Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts by Samuel Williston § 55:32 (4th ed. 2001) (citations omitted). (See also CBA Art. 9, § 9.8.)
35 Section 51-Ill of the FPAA provides, in pertinent part, as follows: All rules, regulations, fiscal procedures, working conditions, department practices and manner of conducting the operation and adminis~ration. of fire departments and police departments currently in effect on the effective date of any negotiated agreement sh{lll be deet1}ed a part of said agreement unless and except as modified or changed by the specific tenus of such agreement. OKLA. STAT. tit. 11, § 51-111.
35

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 36 of 122
the responsibility of management.36 For example, under the management tights provision, the City retains thc right to: "detennine poliQe Department policy including the rights to manage the affairs of the Police Department in aU respects;" "estabhsh and enforce Police Department rules, regulations, and orders;" and "introduce new, improved or different methods and techniques of Police Department operation or change existing methods and techniques." (CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(a), (]), and (k).) The City also retains the right to "organize and reorganize the Police Department;" and "to dctemline the amount of supervision necessary." (Id. Art. 2, § 2.2(e) and (1).)
Whether the City has the authority to enter into the proposed decree depends, in part, on the appropriate interpretation standard to be applied in construing the management rights provision of the CBA. In this regard, the FOP argues that the "clear and unmistakable waiver" standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 708 (1983), applics in this case. (FOP's Objections at 16-17.) Under the clear and unmistakable waiver standard, Plaintiffs and the City would be required to introduce evidence of specific intent
36 Section 2.1 of the CBA contain,s the,broad,stat~~1)t,ofQ1e., C)ty's rights with respect to the management of the TPD:
Lodge recognizes the prerogative of Employer to operate and manage its affairs in a11 respects and in accordance with its responsibilities, and the powers of authority which Employer has not officially abridged, delegated, granted, or modified by this Agreement arc retained by Employer, and all rights, powers, and authority Employer had prior to the signing of this Agreement are retained by Employer and remain exclusively without limitation within the rights of Employer. (CBA Art. 2, § 2.1.) Section 2.2 of the CBA, on the other hand, enumerates the City's specific rights with respect to management of the TPD.
36

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 37 of 122
,Ji 0.:~
on the part of the union to waive its..right to bargain on the particular subject matter at issue. Metropolitan Edison, 460 U.S. at 708. Thc FOP argues that the Oldahoma Public Employees Relations Board (the "PERB,,)37 has adopted the clear and urnnistakable waiver standard, and, therefore, that the Court should apply this standard in interpreting the management rights clause
in this ca,e. (FOP's Objections at 17-19 (citing IAFF Loeal256 v, City of Jenks, PERB No. 211
(1990); FOP Lodge -125 v. City of G, uymon, PER,B.., No. 329 (19,.9".6)),0.) By contrast, Plaintiffs and the City maintain that the management rights provision of the
CBA should be interpreted under the standard articulated by the Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in NLRB v. U.S. Postal Serv., 8 F.3d 832 (D.C. Cir. 1993), whieh is known as the "contract coverage" standard.38 Under the c_ontr~t coverage standard, if an issue is "covered by" a collc(..iiv(; bargaining agreement, the "union has exercised its right and thc question ofwaivcr is irrelevant." Id. at 836 (internal quotations and citations omitted). In other words, parties to a collective bargaining agreement may agree to a management rights provision "which penuits the employer to exercise rights of management and make substantive c4anges concerning terms and conditions of employment during the term of a collectivc bargaining agreement without requiring bargaining by the employer on such spbject." City ofEI Reno,
J7 The PERB, a statutorily created body composed of three members appointed by the Governor, is the entity vested with the power under the FPAA to "iidoPt, promulgate, amend, or rescind such rules <is it deems ne~.e,ssaty" and to hold public hearings on "any proposed rule of general applicabHity designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe policy, procedure or practice
requirements" under the provisions of the a<.,i. OKLA. STAT. tit. 11, § 51-104.
3S The contract coverage standard, adopted after the Supreme Court's decision in Metropolitan Y. Edison by the Courts of Appeals for both the District of Columbia Circuit and
the Seventh CircUlt, has been ndtlier adQptecf nor rejected by the Supreme Court. ., " ,
37

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 38 of 122

- PERB

Case

No.

35.3

(citing

NLRB

v.

U.S.

Postal .-,

S.e.r-v.,

8

F. J

d
-

8. 32. ).

Plaintiffs and the City contend that the PE@ ha~ ,aslopt.;:d the contract coverage standard

set forth in NLRB v. U.S. Postal Scrv~ and, therefore, that such standard should be applied in this

case. (PIs: & City's Joint Rcsp. to Objections at 6, (citing Lodge No. 103, Fraternal Order of

Police v. City of Ponca City, PERB No. 349 (1997); and Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge lSI v.

City ofEI Reno, PERB No. 353 (1998».) As additional support for its argomentthat the CBA

should bejnterpreted under the contract coverage standard, Plaintiffs and the City contend that

the version of the management rights provision contained in the.CBA was,tPc re~u,lt Clf~~rd-" .'

fought negotiations between the City and the FOP, during which the City gave a "significant

amount

of

consideration ,

to

th'-e

FOP" ' "

in

exchange "-"

for

the

specific

powers

contained

in

Article

2.

(PIs.' & City'S Joint Rcsp. to Objections at 4_5.)39

For the reasons set forth below, the Court applies the contract coverage standard in this

casco Recent PERB decisions int~reting the scope of management rights provisions under the

FPAA have adopted the standard set forth by the District of Columbia Circuit in NLRB v. U.S.

Postal Serv., 8 F.3d 832, and have dcterrninedthat "an employer's unilateral change in

mandatory subjects of bargaining during the term of a contract -is 'permissible when a

39 In this regard, Plaintiffs and the City attach to their joint response a document

represented to be the FOP's proposed '\vatered-down" version of Article 2. (PIs.' & City's Joint

Resp. to Objections, Ex. C.) Among the changes that the City asserts were proposed by the

union but rejected by the City during negotiations w~ the substitution of the language granting

the City the power H[tJO research and offer possible changes to Police Departm'ent policy" instead

curretit'"CBA'. of "[t]o determine Police Department policy,;' as is~ pro~v{de(nn'ilie

'''lli[(emphasis

added).)

38

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 39 of 122

management rights clause evidences a grant of permission by the union to unilaterally effect such

changes.'" Lodge No. 103, Fraternal Order ofpolice y. City o[Ponca City, PERB No. 349

,-",-",'- ;,',,,,,,.,,-,,, "''''\-'''',.0',''''_''"''''__'' __ '-<""'-"-"-,<P~",c,J;.,,,._.,:,., ,, ",_H ';'_""'C __ ,

__ . ,." '. ' __',_'

(1997)

(citing

IAFF

Local

2171
,

v.

City
., "

of Del City,
, ", ' ""'-)~'

PERB.Case No. 194 :~,

,"'--,,, -

,',-,--,,~,.,-- ,

(1990));--L", o",d,,g,e,

No.

127, FraternalOrder of Police v. City of Midwest City, PERB Case.No..375 (2001) (citing IAFF

Local 2171 v. City ofDc1 City, PERB Case No. 194).

The Court rejects the FOP's argument that PERB decisions subsequent to Lodge No. 103,

Fraternal Order of Police y, City of Ponca City, PERB No. 349, and Fraternal Order of Pelice,

,

--,"-'~" ," "--.,,., .."--,p,''',, '_,',,"'.' "'C"".",!:"'_""'''''' ' __,o-..n,." ' ..' " ", "~,,, __,_ ',.~' • '

Lodge

151

v.

City
-

orE1

Reno,
-.' , .. ,

"PER-- B.

,N,--o"....353,

have

"made

clear

that

,a

II).anagement

rights

clause

does not constitute a waiver ofa union,'s,rights." (Reply of Lodge #93 of the Fraternal Order of

Police to PIs.' and Def. City of Tulsa's Joint Resp. to Objections of Lodge #93 of the Fratneral

Order of Police (FOP) to New Proposed Consent Decree at 11.)

The only PERB decision cited by the FOP as authority for this proposition, Lodge No.

127. Fraternal Order ofpolice v. City of Midwest City, PERB No. 375 (2001), does not support

"

,

' , , , , "__ " , , ' 0 < ,

• __ "

'

the union's argument. Tn Lodge No. 127. Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Midwest City, , -", ,,____, _ -, -" -", ,'- _0_".- ___ ,",_, '" __, ,__.,,, ." >', _;, .",', "c ,- ," "_" ",,"' __

PERB

No.

375,

the

PERB

concluded ,

as

a

m,..a"tt"er

oflaw that: "-"',.

Under the FPAA, an employer's unilateral change in mandatory subjects of

bargaining during the tcnn of a contract is permissible only when a management

rights clause evidences a grant of permission by the uni9n to unilater~ly effect

such changes. l.A.F.F. Local 2171 v. City of Del City, PERB Case No. 194

(1990).

.. '.

'... ,.

Lodge No. 127, Fraternal Order of Police Y. Cityof Midwest Cityc PERB No. 375. The FOP argues that this decision, because it cites to the 1970 PERB decision in IAFF Local 2171 v. City of Del City, indicates that the PERB, in Lodge No. 103, Fraternal Order of Police v. City of
39

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 40 of 122

Ponca City, was not changing and had not changed its view regarding the interpretation standard

to be applied. in determining whether a municipality could unilateral,ly effect changes to tenns

and conditions of employment based on a grant of pennission in the management rights

provision of a collective bargaining agreement. The Court, however, rejects this argument

because the PERB, in Lodge No. 103, Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Ponca City, clearly

"

'.-. ",'-- ,..- "-'

adopted the contract coverage standard of interpretation:

Parties to a labor agreement may reach an agreement which pennits the employer to issue policies and make s1,1bstant~ye 29-anges concerning t:mns and conditions of employment during the tenn of a collective bargaining agreement without requiring bargaining by the employer on such subjects. N.L.R.B. v. U.S~ Postal Serv.• 8 F.3d 832 (D.C. Crr. 1993). United Technologies Corp.• 287 NLRB No. 16 130 LLRM (BNA) 1086 (1987).

Therefore, because the Oklahoma "PERB h~ :qlost TC9~I]-tly adopted the approach of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir,cuit, which essen~i~l1y holds that the waiver doctrine is inapposite in unilateral change cases involving a claim of contractual privilege, the Court finds that the appropriate standard to be applied in this case is the contract coverage standard.
As explained above, under the contract cov~age standard, the Court's analysis turns on the interpretation of the contract at issue) rather than.on the question of waiver. Sec NLRB v.
u.s. Postal Serv., 8 F.3d at 837. Tn other words, if the City has the power under the management
rights provision ofthc CBA to enter into the proposed decree, the need for a showing of the FOP's specific intent to waive t4e right to bargain over ,eaGh particular subject is obviated. See
40

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 41 of 122

id. Thus, in deciding whether the FOP's contract~?J__~_4,lcgal rights under the CBA and FPAA
_qty are impaired by the pr.oposed decree, the C.ourt rpust fifs>t4~t~111~ ,y.:h~!h~~, ~~, has the
authority, under the management rights pr.ovision ofthe eBA, to enter into the December 2002 Dccree. 4()
The parties urge the Court t.o declare, on a wholesale basis, that the entire decree is valid or invalid based on the powers granted, or not granted, by the management rights provisi'on of the CBA. The FOP argues that, even under the contract coverage standard, the City does not have the authority under the management rights provision of the CBA to, ent~ int<;) th_e proposed decree. Plaintiffs and th~ City, on the other hand, argue that the proposed decree is a valid exercise of the City's prerogatives under t,hat provision. (See FOP's Objections at 14-16; PIs.' &

40 "Alth.ough collective bargaining agreements are not ordinary contracts and we not

governed by the same common law concepts that govern private cantracts ... certain basic

contract interprctation principles apply to constructian .oflabor agreements." Valkman v. United

Transp. Union, 73 F.3d 1047, 1050 (lOth Cif. 1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

"If the language of an agreement is' unambiguous, it may be construed as a matter oflaw without

resort to extrinsic evidence, .ofinWp.t." Id: (citation .omitted); see also Scrivner v. Sonat

Exploration Co., 242 F.3d 1288, 1293 (lOth Cir. 2001) (quoting OKLA. STAT. tit. 15, § 154)

("The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit

and does not involve an absurdity."). "Contracts are ta qe cOAstI1Jq~t\\.::itl;1 ~ach Sla.p.s~ helping to

interpret other chmses." Pub. Servo Co. of Okla. v. Burlington N. R.R. Ca., 53 F.3d 1090, 1097
(lOth Cir. 1995) (citing Shepard v. French, 612 P:2d72'(729 (Okl.:ei.'App:198bj).' ....

"Partie-ular clauses of [a] contract, thouih persuaSive in Isolation, arc not deemed controlling

when violative of the general intent of the parties cxpressed in the contract as a whole:" Td.

(quoting United States v. H.O. Cozad Constr. Co., 324 F.2d 617, 619 (10th Cir. 1963)).

management may 'not he Applying these canons of construetio"ll, ;'a

fights'clause

considered apart

from the rest of a collective bargaining agreement" bccause implied terms may existwhhili" the ,',

'a tlian, agreement that give a management rights piovis'ion narrower scope

at"first"reading, its

terms may suggest. 20 Richard A, Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts by Samuel

Williston § 55:35 (4th ed. 2001) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). ........ .

41

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 42 of 122

City's Joint Resp. to Objections 3-11.) The Court tinds that whql~sale agoption of either .ofth.~s~ ~r9!l<ijm~retations of the
management rights provision, without specific ties to a particular section of the proposed decree, would frustrate the purpose and function ofthe CBA. Accordipgly, the Court will address below

subjects of bargaining, and which were the focus of the ~vide1}ce presented to the Court in connection with the FOP's objections to the proposed decree. In analyzing these specific sections of the proposed decree, the Court will determine whcth~r .they are a pennissible exercise of the City's powers under the management rights provision of the CBA and, therefore, not in
conflict with the FOP's contractual and legal rights under the CBA and the FPAA-.41
Before addressing the specific sections of the DcceJ1lber)OO,::! pe~r~e, it is important to note two particularly significant changes between the April 2002 D~crec and the pece;mber 2002
Decree. First, Plaintiffs and' the City added a rule of Gonstruct!(In to t1~e pecemb9" 2,OOf 'p~,cree,
which provides that the proposed decree shall be interpreted so as to be in accordance with the CBA. Section 1.5 provides in its entirety as follows:
The Parties recognize the existence and validity of the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA') between the City and the Fratem~l Ord~ of Police, Lodge

41 Pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Settlement, the FOP was, required to file any

objections

to

the

Decemb. er

2002

Decree

no "

later than "

Jan.u'a.ry

8,

2003.

On that date, the FOP

filed a sixty-four page statement of its objections, which included a twenty-six page brief, (FOP's

Objections), and a thirty~eight page exhibit specifically identifying the bases for the union's

objections to certain provisions of the proposed de,-,1;'ee, (FOP"s Objections, Ex. A). The Court

notes that this filing constitutes the record of the FOP's.,objections to the Decen)ber 2002pe(;[ee

and controls over any wholly divergent argument raised by counsel in subsequent briefs.

42

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 43 of 122

No. 93 ("FOP"). It is the intent of the Partie~to co1llply with the CBA and, therefore, all operating directives provided for by this De("Tee shall be read to be in accordance with language in the CBA.
(December 2002 Decree § 1':5.)42 Second, Plaintiffs and the City added a severability clause. to
the December 2002 Decree. (See December 2002 Decree § 34.1.) Section 34.1 provides in its

entirety as follows: "In the event any provision of this Decree is declared, invaliq., fqr any reason
by the Court, said finding shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Decree." (.wJ
The Court finds that Plaintiffs and the City intended, in modifYing the April 2002 Decree
by adding Sections 1.5 and 34.1 to the Decem,per.2002 Decree, to avoid any violation of the
FOP's rights under the CBA and, if necessary, to sever any provisions that impermissibly

interfere with the FOP's rights under that agreement. Thus, for purposes of analyzing whether

the

December

2002

Decree

conflicts with

.

"-"

the

C--BA,

the

Court,

in

an

effort

to

effectuate

Plaintiffs'

and the City's intent expressed in Section 1.5, construes the proposed decree, where possible, in

a manner that does not violate the CBA/3 F~,er, the Court acknQ\Vledges the parties' desire for

--

-.-'

., - ,

,< ..

42 Section 1.1 of the December 2002,pecree c;I~fille~ "J>_<l:.~~~'" for purposes of the proposed decree, as Plaintiffs mld the City. (December 2002 Decree § 1.1.) Accordingly, quotations to the proposed decree that refer to "Parties",should be,1¥1p.erstood a§ a refe,rence, t~ parties to the settlement agreement rather than parties to this case.
4.1 See 11 Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts by Samuel Williston § 30:25 (4th ed. 1999) ("So long as the cOntnlet ffii(kesdearre(ef"ence tothe"documOrit'and describes it in such terms that its identity may be ascertained beyond doubt, the parties to a contract may incorporate contractual terms by reference to a separate, rioncontemporancous document, including a separate agreement to which they are not parties ....") (citations omitted). See also, ~ Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561, 574 (1984)
(holding that City ofMemphis did not intend to (fepart frcnn"ex.'i:st1Ii'g'serrlofltY' systcixi establlsnecI'
through city's arrangements with union where original decree anticipated that city would recognize seniority and later decree stated that it \Va.~ "npt int~np~,!9 99pJli(~t ~jtlu~·ny provisions" of original decree).
43

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 44 of 122

the Court, in interpreting the proposed decr:ee, to sever any provision that it finds cannot be

construed

in

a

mann~rthat

does,TI.9!

\(iol,'!t~"tl}(; .9~~:

.

-,

_.}t

is)"hr.~" :mgh. this'prism

that

the

Co'u.rt .w.ill

to. analyze the individual provisions of the December 20.0.2 Decree that. the FOP cl~ims,re~ate

mandatory subjects ofbargaining~ and whjch were the focus of the evidence addressed by the

Court in connection with the FOP's objections to the proposed decree. The Court's analysis of

these objections is as follows: 44

1. Section 3.1 - Data Collection

Se<.-iion 3.1 of the December 20.0.2 D~cr~c rC,quires the creation ofa data collectign system

to capture and analyze data relating to "individual, squad, shift, division, and individuals in the

chain of command." (December 20.0.2 Decree § 3.1.) The proposed decree identifies fifteen

specific types of data to be collected. (Id.) With the exception of supervisor contact reports

(§ 3.l.g), pedestrian stop reports (§ 3.1.1), and search and seizure reports (§ 3.I.m), all of this

data is cmrently being collected by the TPD. (1121103 Tr. at 174:3 - 181 :14.)

The FOP argues that ''the original decision to coUect the data and the intended usc of the

data are both separate and independent mandatory subjects of bargaining and, thus, violate the

FOP's rights" under the CBA. (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 5.) The FOP further argues that the

creation of new fonns is, and has historically been, a mandatory subject ofbargaining. Finally,

the FOP argues that the requirement to complete these new forms is';;I. ''new workrule" and that

44 Although tl,e FOP lodged objections to fifty subsections of the December 2002 Decree, the Court omits explicit analysis of those objections that it has found are patently without merit.
44

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 45 of 122

failure to complete the fOlms co,ull) subject officers to discipline.

Plaintiffs and the City maintain that Section ,3.1 falls u,n~l,~f !he City's express

management rights to "introduce new, improved, or different methods and techniques ofPolice

Department operation or change existing techniqucs" and to "detennine the amount of

supervision necessary." (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot. t?r a Ruling on the Effect of

the Consent Decree on the FOP and I!s"M,embe.:r:s (hereinafter "PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to

FOP's Mot."), Ex. A at 2 (citing CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(k) and (I)).) Plaintifis and the City further

maintain that, while the FOP may be permitted to bargain over what thc form will look like, it

carmot prevent the City from requiring these fonus as a new method of operation and an increase

in supervision, Finally, Plaintiffs and, the City maintain that the City has the power under

Section 2.2(d) of the CBA to discipline officers for "just cause" and that any disciplinary

consequences arising from an officer's failure tQ complete this fonn would not change the "just

cause" disciplinary standard.

Applying the contract coverage standard described above, the Court concludes that the

City has the authority, pursuant to the management rights provision of the CBA, to implement

,- the

data

collection

system described

.. itl, .,. S,{)cti(m, -

3,1

.o. ,f

th
'-',

e '--'

D'.,'e"c.e'm."'b-'cr

2002 Decree:

'

"-'''', .-, ----"

The Court . .- -,,,. ,,,' "" "

finds that the collection ofthrce new categories of data falls within the City's enumerated rights

under Article 2 of the eBA to "introdu~e Il~w, improved, or different methods and tcchniques of

Police Department operation or change cxisting techniques" and to "'determine the amount of

45

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 46 of 122

supervision necessary." (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(k) and (1).)45 The Court finds that, although the

union has historically bargained over the design of any new fonns, the FOP's right to bargain in

this regard does not supplant the City's management rights under Article 2 of the CBA to modify

existing methods and techniques or to determine the necessary supervision of officers.

The Court further finds that Section 3.1 of the December 2002 Decree does not contain

,

'-

"-' -,- - •

,_'Coo"~

,,'.' , , '

.' , •• "_",'

any new discipline rules or change the "just cause" disciplinary standard sct forth in Section

2.2(d) of the CBA. (Compare December 2002 Decree § 3.1 Witll CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(d) (granting

the City the right "[t]o discipline, suspend or tenninate any employee for good and sufficient

cause (good and sufticicnt cause is synonymous with 'just cause')".) The Court finds that,

although an officer could be disciplined for his or her failure to complete a new fonn under

Section 3.1, such discipline docs not change the "just cause" standard under Article 2 offhe

CBA. (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(d).)" Moreover, the Court observes that nothing in the proposed

45 The COWl notes "ttiat, at the January 2003 fairness heatings, Chief Been testified that even the three types of data characterized as "new" information are, for the most part, collected in some form today. (1121103 Tr. at 175:21-181 :21.) In thisregard, ChiefBccn testified that, for
these categories of data, the documentatiQn of the .~fl~a.(m aleport fonn; rather than the coll~ction ofthe data itself, would be the new method under the proposed decree. (hlJ

46 As Plaintiffs and the City suggest in their brief, the City cannot discipline officers without "just cause." (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 10-11 ("Anytime that the Decree calls for appropriate discipline or corrective action, it is assumed that the City cannot violate its contractual duties under the .CB,A intaJ9.ng any such corrective action. In other words, the City must still have 'just cause' before disciplining any officer.").) In this regard,'Scction 3.1 of the proposed decree specifically provides that "[d]ata collection itself shall not be the basis for disciplining officers." (December 2002 Decree § 3.1.) Testimony was adduced at the fairness hearings that raw data colhfctcd pursuant to Section 3.1 of the proposed decree would not be the sole basis for disciplining officers. (1121/03 Tr. at 74:9-76:9.) Therefore, because data collection itself will not be the sale basis for discipline and because, the City carmot discipline
46

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 47 of 122
decree prevents the FOP or any of its members from fiJing a grievance with respect to any unjust discipline in the futurc. For these reasons, the Court finds that Section 3.1 of the Dc;:cembcI 20p~, Decree is a valid exercise of the City's management rights under Article 2 of the CBA and, thus, overrules the FOP's objections to this provision.
2. Section 5.1 Specialty Assignments Section 5.1 of the December 2002.D.~cree provides that "[all! specialty assignments shall be madc on the basis of merit and fitness." The proposed decree does not contain definitions for the terms "merit" and "fitness." The FOP argues that the inclusion oEthi,s provision' in the proposed decree is contrary to the FOP's rights under the CBA because it "is a chf1!1ge to the current process in which some discretion is uS.ed by the City to fill specialty assignments." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 4.) The FOP further argues that ''the Decree freezes and r~~trict,s fut1Jt:~_FQP,bargaining over the criteria
to fill 'specialty assignments' for the duration of the :p~,<;re_e." QQJ Finally, the FOP argues that
the subjective detennination of the ''m_erit'' and "'fitness" g;t,eria, which are not (jefined in the CBA, are mandatory subjects of bargaining. (!QJ
Plaintiffs and the City contend tbat the FOP has no su.bst~tiye objection to Section 5.1. (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 3 ("FOP does not allege that assignments based solely upon merit or fitness is unfair or disCIjrn.inatory to any officer.").) They further contend that Section 5.1 falls under the City'S express management rights to "introduce new,
officers without "just cause," the Court finds that Se~tion 3.1 does n,ot.~oqtaig,.~ nc)V_giscipline rule or change the "ju~t cause" disciplinary standard.
47

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 48 of 122

improved, or different methods and techniques of Police Department operation or change

existing techniques." (l!l (citing CBA Art. 2. § 2.2(k).) Finally, Plaintiffs and the City argue

that "[tlhe fact that thc fOP will not be permitted to bargain to change the assignments standard

from 'merit' and 'fitness' quring the life of this Decreeis a 'tWll0r ~Aan,?ill~' restraint on the

FOP." (Id. (citing Gen. Bldg. Contractors Assoc. v. Pa., 458 U.S. 375, 399 (1982)).

The

Court

finds ,

that

Section

5.1

of the

December -"

2002

Decree '"

is

c
-

onsist "'

e. nt

with

the

City's existing system for appointments and promotions. See TULSA~ OKLA., CITY CHARTER

ch.1O, § 1.1 ("Appointments and promotions in the classified s(:rvi9~ ofth,e city shall be made

solely on the basis ofmerit and fitness, detemrined by competitive procedures.") (emphasis

".,," •

, • " , ' " , < -' .. .., " ••••••- , . ' , , " , . ~ ,,,.,' ''''',' " ' " " . " - ' , " , , ' - •• ~. "

added). In this regard, the Court find~JhaJ S,e91ion_5_~Lofthe proposed decree is merely a

restatement of existing City policy. Furthermore, the Court finds that the City has the authority,

pursuant to Article 2 of the CBA, to declare that specialty assignments shall be based on "merit"

and "titness." (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(a) (granting City the right "[tJo determine Police

Department policy"}.)

The Court further finds that nothing in the December 2002 Decree precludes the City

from bargaining with the FOP about the meaning ofthe terms "merit'~ and "fitness.,,47 As with

the creation of any new forms under Section 3.1 ofthc proposed decree, the FOP's right to
bargain in this regard does not supplant the City's right under Article 2 of the eBA, to determine

47 Surely the FOP docs not intend to argue in bargaining with the City that specialty

assigrnnents should be given to non-m_eritopous or unfit individuals. O( cpurse, what constitutes

, ,. ""

"," .., " __ , ""._,_ "," .~ e. , __ , ..

"merit" and "fitness" for a particular assignment will remain a subject for collective bargaining.

48

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 49 of 122

TPD policy. (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(a).)" For these reasons, the Court overrules the FOP's

objections to Section 5.1 of the proposed decrc.e..

3. Section 5.3 - Training in Basic Investigation - ,,- .,v -~- ---',--;."~--~:e,_ "'::'_"V">." ,:,_
Section 5.3 of the December 2002 Decree requires the TPD to establish, within twelve

months of the entty of the proposed decree, "a one-day training in basic investigation, which

shall include report writing, search warrants, and case managemenC' (December 2002 Decree

§ 5.3,)

Section

5.3

further

mang~~es -

th'!~
,

tl?-e,
-, "

r"p, p.,-,".r,.e

q

u-i

re that
--.

train"i.ng

as

a

prerequisite

to

applying for a position as a Detective/Investigator in Detective Division, SID,49 or Uniformed

",

",

Division, by September 1, 2005." (Id.)

The FOP objects to Section 5.3, arguing that the proposed decree establishes, without

negotiation with the union, "definite nonnegotiable training prerequisites, thereby preempting the

FOP's rights and violating the FOP's rights as exclusive qargaining agent under the CBA

Preamble and Article 1.1, Article 9.8, and Article 11.3." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 9.) The

FOP argues that the December 2002 Decree c~eates a new position of "investigator," for which

the scope and duties are mandatory subjects of bargaining. (ld. (citing FOP Lodge 125 v. City of

Guymon, PERB No. 329 (1996)).) Finally, the FOP argues that "[tlhe CBA also only grants the

City the right to 'train ... new employees') Article 2.2(h); it docs not authori?c the City to

48 Moreover, even if Section 5.1 could be construed as imposing a burden on the FOP's rights under the CBA) the Court finds t4~t any such burden is de minimis. Cf. Gen. Bldg, Contractors Assoc., 458 U.S. at 399 (stating that district court on'J~.,granting injunctive relief imposing "minor and ap.~jl1ary" restrictions against a defendant against whom no liability was found may be pennissible upon "an appropriate evidentiary showing").

49 The Court assumes that '.~~lP:_: ref~s ,to the Special Investigations Division of the TPD.

,

' , ' B"_",_,,. '''_ /

,

"" ", .,. ,_,...

", _,'"

,

49

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 50 of 122
unilaterally mandate training of existing employees." (ID
Plaintiffs and the City argue that implementing Section 5.3 is within the City's "gcneral
management rights to detennine policy, manage affairs of [theJTPD, assign work, establish rules
and regulations, detennine job c1assifications, etc." (PIs.' & City'S Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 4 (citing CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(a), (0), (g), and 0)).) Plaintiffs and the City further assert that the FOP mischaracterizes the language of the December 2002 Decree because Section 5.3 docs not "create" any new position.50
The Court finds that the,City has the authority, pursuant to Article 2 of the CBA, to require a one-day training in basic investigation for applicants for the position of detective/investigator. Specifically, the City has the right under the CBA to "detenninc Police Department policy" and ''to manage the affairs ofthe Police Department in all respects." -(eBA Art. 2, § 2.2(a).) The City also has the right to "establish Police Department rules, regulations
and orders." Oil § 2.20)·)
The Court further finds that Section 5.3, unlike Section 5.9 discussed below, does not indicate any intention on the part ofPlaintiffs or the City to create a new position. (Compare December 2002 Decree § 5.3 with id. § 5.9 (identifying positions called for by the proposed decree as "newly created positions").) Accordingly, the Court overrules the FOP's objections to Section 5.3 of the proposed decree.
so Moreover, Plaintiffs and the City contend that the FOP has no substantive objection to Section 5.3 of the proposed decree. (Id. ("FOP does not allege that new prerequisite is unfair or discriminatory to any officer.").)
50

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 51 of 122

4.

Section 5.5 - Recruiting for Specialty ~ssignments

As desl"nbed above, Section 5.5 of the December 2002 Decree prohibits those in the

chain of command from '"directly or indirectly recruiting persons to apply for a specialty

assignment," other than the process previously adopted by the City and described in Section 5.2

of the December 2002 Decree.

The FOP argues that this requirement constitutes the establishment of a "new work rule."

The FOP further argues that sueh establishment of a new work rule, and the disciplinary

consequences for violation of this rule, are both mandatory subjects of bargaining under the

CBA. (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 9.)

Plaintiffs and the City maintain that the ban on informal and subjective recruiting is

"simply a 'change' in 'existing techniques' of making specialty assigrunents" and \\.'ithin the

City's management rights under the CBA. (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 3

(citing CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(k)).) Plaintiffs and the City further maintain that the City has the

power under Section 2.2(d) of the CBA to discipline officers for 'just cause" and that any

disciplinary consequences for a violation of this rule would be based on the power granted to the

City under that section of the management rights provision.

The Court finds that the City has the authority, pursuant to the management rights

provision of the CBA, to prohibit individuals in the chain of command from directly or indirectly

recruiting persons to apply for a specialty assignment. (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(k) (granting the

City the right to "introduce new, improved, or different methods and techniques of Police

Department operation or change existing techniques").) The Court further finds that the

51

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 52 of 122
introduction ofthis new prohibition neither establishes a new disciplinary nue nor changes the "just cause" disciplinary standard set forth in Section 2.2(d) of the CRA. For these reasons, the Court finds that Section 5.5 of the December 2002 Decree is a valid exercise of the City's management rights under Article 2 of the CBA and, thus, overrules the FOP's objections to this provision.
5. Section 5.6 - Review of Minimum Requirements Section 5.6 of the December 2002 Decree requires the TPD to review established minimum requirements for all positions in order to ensure that they relate to the requirements of the position. (December 2002 Decree § 5.6.) Thc FOP argues that this provision "constitutes a unilateral imposition of minimum position requirements which are mandatory subjects ofbargaining and violates Articles 1.1,9.8 and 11.3 of the CBA." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 10.) The union also criticizes Section 5.6 of the proposed decree, asserting that it imposes a management philosophy that is unrelated to the substance of the lawsuit. Plaintiffs and the City contend that reviewing the established minimal requirements for all positions is something that talls under the City's "general management rights to determine policy, manage affairs of [the] TPD, assign work, establish rules and regulations, detennine job classifications, etc." (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 5 (citing CBA Art. 2) § 2.2(a). (e). (g), and (j)).) Plaintiffs and the City further contend that "[r]equiring the department to assure that minimum requirements for positions directly relate to requirements for performance ofjob[s] is related to the lawsuit in that Plaintiffs alleged that assignments were
52

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 53 of 122
given based upon entirely subjective criteria (race, cronyism, etc.)." (Id.) They explain that the purpose of this provision was to assure that position requirements will remain objective. Od.)
The Court finds that the City has the power, pursuant to its general management rights under Article 2 of the CBA, to review the established minimal requirements for positions. The Court rejects the suggestion that the CBA prohibits the City from reViewing its own policies and job requirements. Such a broad reading of the prevailing rights clause in the CBA cannot stand when reviewed in tandem with the enumerated powers of management under Article 2. The Court further finds that, for the reasons arti,culatcd by Plaintiffs and the City, Section 5.6 is sufficiently related to the substance of Plaintiffs' c1aims. For these reasons, the Court overrules the FOP's obje("'iions to Section 5.6.
6. Section 5.7 Qualifications for Specialty Assignments Section 5.7 of the proposed decree provides that "the established minimum qualifications for positions shall not be waived," unless no one who meets the minimum qualifications for an open specialty assignment applies for that assigmnent. (December 2002 Decree § 5.7.) In the event that no one meeting the minimum qualifications applies, "the Department may open the position to all applicants and select the most qualified applicant for the position.j , (Id.) The FOP argues that Section 5,7 of the December 2002 Decree "frcezes the present 'minimum qualification,' thereby pre-empting the FOP's right under the CBA and FPAA to negotiate future changes to these requirements." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 10,) The FOP further argues that "Section 5.7 allows the department to select the 'most qualified person' without any definitive selection criteria, which also constitutes a violation of the FOP's right to
53

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 54 of 122

bargain [over] mandatory subjects of bargaining." (Id.)

because the proposed decree "does not say that some minimum job requirements cannot be changed or negotiated." (Pis." & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 5.) Instead, Plaintiffs and the City contend that the, clear intentgfthi~ provision "is that minimum job

qualified applicant applies." ilil (emphasis in original).)

The Court finds that Section 5.7 of the proposed decree docs not conflict with the FOP's

rights under the CBA and the FPAA t9. t;legotiate future changes to the "minimum qualifications"

for specialty assignments. Specifically, the Court finds that nothing in the December 2002

Decree precludes the FOP from bargaining with the City over future changes to the minimum

qualifications for specialty assigmnents or the meaning of the tenn "most qualified applicant."

(See December 2002 Decree § 5.7.) Thus, the Court overrules the FOP's objections to

Section 5.7 of tile proposed decree.

7. Section 5.9 - Recruiting and Career Development

",,>,.,'>',,,

" " •• h."

Section 5.9 of the Decetnber 20Q2 De,cree provides that the City shall "organize at the

Academy, a Recruiting and Career Development Section under the supervision of a sergeant

assisted by a corporal, which shall be newly created positions." (December 2002 Decree

§ 5.9.) Under the.proposed decree, the Recruiting and Career Development Section will be

responsible for ''c,onsulting with supervisors and comrrland~,of specialty units; identifying

informal training opportunities; and acquainting themselves with the requirements of all specialty

54

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 55 of 122
positions." (MJ The proposed decr~~ :furth~ states that th,e Recrui~ng and Career Development
Section will assist officers in developing and achieving career plans: Upon request of an officer, tbis section shaH assist the requesting officer in developing a career plan which reflects the officer's individual career goals. The career plan shall specify assignments and training wbich are needed by the officer to achieve these goals. The sergeant in charge of this section shall serve as both
an advisor and an advocate fpr officers in aqhieving their career plans and shall be
an ex-officio member of the Training Committee. The Recruitment and Career Development Section shall further have the duty of insuring that all officers seeking promotion are kept infonned of the testing procedures, the scope of the subjects to be tested or the materials from whiQh the test ques~ions are drawn ....
(hlJ
The FOP claims that "Section 5.9 of the Decree provides for the establishment of new positions to staffa new 'Recmiting and Career Development Section' without limiting the TPD's ability to select the sergeant or corporal to staff the Section." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 10.) The FOP further claims that Section 5.9 requires the implementation of "new work rules and terms and conditions of employment in violation ofthc CBA, such as identifying training opportunities and assisting officers in developing career plans." Od.) The FOP also argues that "[t}o an undetennined extent, § 5.9 may also violate Article 6.2 of the CBA, which establishes an officer's ability to use seniority to selcct substation assignments and days off." (ld.) The FOP furthcr asserts that "the creation ofthe career plan to accomplish spccific career goals, as mandated by the Decree, is a mandatory subject ofbargaining requiring negotiation with the
FOP." CI4:. at 10-11.) Finally, the FOP argues that, because Section 5.9 requires the sergeant in
charge of the Recruitment and Carecr Development Section to act as an "advocate" for officers in achieving their career plan, this section of the proposed decree '"violates the FOP's role as thc
55

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 56 of 122
exclusive representative of bargaining unit members articulated in Article 1.1 of the CBA."
eMU"
Plaintitls and the City contend that the creation of new positions for a sergeant and corporal are within the City's management right to "hire, promote or transfer any employee." (PIs.' & City'S Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 5 (citing CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(c) and (e)).) Plaintiffs and the City further contend that it "is not a 'new work rule" for the career development [sergeant] to help officers identify career opportunities, and assist them with their career plans, this is merely an assigned duty necessary to that position." (Id. (citing CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(e) and (g).) Plaintiffs and the City argue that, because each individual officer has the right to determine his or her own career plan without union interference, the creation of a eareer plan for these individual officers is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. <1;L. at 6.) Plaintiffs and the City contend that the FOP's "seniority" objection is speculative because nothing in the proposed
decree impinges upon existing seniority rights. (hiJ Finally, Plaintiffs and the City, explaining
that Section 1.5 of the December 2002 Decree requires that the proposed decree be read to be in accordance with the CBA, maintain that the "word 'advocate' is not used in the collective
bargaining agent sense." (hlJ
First, the Court finds that neither the creation of two new positions nor the assignment of responsibilities and duties tor those positions, as called for by Section 5.9 of the December 2002
51 Section 1.1 of the CBA provides, in pertinent part, that "Employer recognbo;es Lodge as the exclusive bargaining agent for all Employees oftbe Tulsa Police Department .... "(CBA Art. 1, § 1.1.)
56

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 57 of 122
Decree, constitutes a new work rule subject to mandatory bargaining with the union. The Court finds that both the creation of these new positions and the allocation ofresponsib11ities arc within the City's enumerated management rights to "hire, promote or transfer any employee;" to "allocate and assign work to all Employees within the Police Department;" and to "detennine the organizational chart of the Police Department, including ... the detennination ofjob classifications." (See eBA Art 2, § 2.2(c), (g), and (e).)
Second, the Court finds that the creation of a career plan that reflects an officer's individual career goals is not a mandatory subject of bargaining that requires negotiation with the FOP. In fact, Section 5.9 of the proposed decree specifically provides that only "[uJpon the request of an officer, ... this section shall assist the requesting officer in developing a career plan which reflects the officer's individual career goals." (See December 2002 Decree § 5.9 (emphasis added).) Because each individllill officer presumably has the right to detennine his or her own career plan without union interference, the Court finds that the creation of such a plan at an individual officer's request is not a mandatory subject ofbargaining.
Third, the Court finds nothing in the language of Section 5.9 of the December 2002 Decree that, on its face, affects Section 6.2 of the CBA. Section 6.2 of the CBA provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Except where impractical due to skill levels of Employees, or ,experience of Employees, or where specific working conditions exist which would preclude certain Employees from working specific shifts or substations, and considering required manning levels, seniority will be the dominant factor to be considered by the Chief of Police. S'eniority shall be_exercised in the following sequence of priority with "a" being first:
57

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 58 of 122
(a) Substation assignment. (b) Shift assignment. (c) Assign regular days off. (d) Grant annual leave.
(e) Seniority will be the dominant factor in gnmting time off up to forty (40)
work hours before the requested day off .... (CBA Art. 6, § 6.2.) Although the Court recognizes the significance of the issue of seniority in the collective bargaining context,52 the Court ovenules the FOP's objection in this regard because it has failed to specifically identifY any real conflict between Section 5.9 of the December 2002 Decree and Section 6.2 of the CBA. (See FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 10 ("To an undetermined extent, § 5.9 may also violate Article 6.2 of the CBA ....").)
Fourth, the Court finds that, to the extent the language in Secti-on 5.9 of the proposed decree, which requires the sergeant in charge of the Recnriting and Career Development Section to act as an "advisor and an advocate" for officer5<, conflicts with the FOP's role as exclusive bargaining agent pursuant to Article 1.1 of the CBA, the language in the CBA controls. (See December 2002 Decree § 1.5.) Therefore, the Court construes the term "advocate" in Section 5.9 in a manner that does not infringe upon the FOP's role as exclusive bargaining agent under the CBA and the FPAA. In other words, the Court construes the directive that the new sergeant advocate for officers to mean that he or she shall advocate in a manner that does not include acting as a collective bargaining agent. Because the Court finds that Section 5.9 of the December
52 See generally Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts, 467 u.s. 561,570 nA
(1984) ("Seniority has traditionally been, and continues to be, a matter of great concern to American workers. More than any other provision of the colleC'tive'bargaining"agreement ... seniority affects the economic security of the individual employee covered by its tenns.") (internal qll0tations and citations omitted).
58

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 59 of 122
f."'I,
2002 Decree can be read in a manner that does' not v10lat,e the FOP's contractual rights under the
CI3A and the FPAA, the Court overrules the FOP's objections to Section 5.9. 8. Section 6.1 - Merit and Fitness Standard for Recruiting Section 6.1 of the proposed de("Tee mandates that aU hiring shall be based on "merit and
fitness." (December 2002 Decree § 6.1 ("All hiring shall be based on merit and fitness, as required by the City of Tulsa Personnel Policies and Procedures, See:tion 101.").)
The FOP objects to Section 6.1 of the proposed decree, arguing that hiring requirement..;; are issues afpast negotiations between the City and the FOP. (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 11.) Specifically, the FOP objects as follows:
[T]he hiring requirements, particularly the educational degree requirement, are issues afpast negotiations with the FOP. For example, the FOP recently negotiated with the City in respect to the requirement that Tulsa police officers obtain a full four-year college degree. To the extent that "merit" or "fitness" could be interpreted to not require a college degree, the Decree would violate the past practice and agreement of the FOP.
Plaintiffs and the City respond to the FOP's objections by explaining that the December 2002 Decree does not change any objective existing hiring requirements. (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 6.) Plaintiffs and the City maintain that "the [rJequirements of 'merit' and 'fitness' under Decree [Section] 1.5, must be read in accordance with the CBA!'
(!4J
First, the Court fmds that the policy articulated in Section 6.1 of the proposed decreethat "all hiring shall be based on merit and fitness" - is within the City'S management rights
59

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 60 of 122
under the CBA "[tJo be the sole judge ofthe qualifications of applicants and training of new Employees" and "[t]o determine Police Department policy." (eBA Art. 2, § 2.2(h) and (a).) Second, the Court finds that nothing in Section 6.1 of the proposed decree changes any objective hiring requirements or prevents thc FOP from negotiating with the City regarding hiring requirements in the future. For these reasons, the Court overrules the FOP's objection to Section 6.1 of the December 2002 Decree.
9. Section 6.5 Temporary Employment Opportunities Section 6.5 of the proposed decree provides that "[i]n order to attract and retain applicants, temporary employment opportunities of up to six months in duration shall be made available to persons accepted to the Academy." (December 2002 Decree § 6.5.) The FOP objects to Section 6.5 of the December 2002 Decree on the grounds that it is unclear. In objecting to this provision, the FOP states: This section ofthe proposed Consent Decree is hopelessly unclear. Seemingly, it provides for temporary employment opportunities of up to six months for individuals who have been selected for, but prior to begiiming, the [Police] Academy. Ifthis interpretation is correct, such a procedure violates the CBA by giving away bargaining unit work to civilian employees. Further, this provision would violate an existing arbitration award which recognizes the FOP's inherent rights as the exclusive bargaining agent and defines the scope of the bargaining unit work, specifically Article § 1.1. (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 11.) Plaintiffs and the City maintain that the FOP's objections mischaracterize Section 6.5 of the proposed decree because that provision "does not give any 'bargaining unit' work to civilians." (PIs.' and City's Joint Rcsp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 6.) Plaintiffs and the City
60

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 61 of 122
further maintain that the City has the express management right to "hire ... any employee." (Id. (citing CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(c)).) Plaintiffs and the City state that, because the FOP does not identifY the arbitration award it refers to in its objections specifically, or cven whether that arbitration award dealt with any issue raised by Section 6.5 of the proposed decree, they are unable to respond to this argument.
The Court finds that Section 6.5 of the proposed decree falls within the City's right under Section 2.2(c) of the CBA to "direct the members of the Police Department, including the right to hire, promote, or transfer any employee." (CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(c).) The Court fmds that nothing in Section 6.5 of the proposed decree authorizes the City to give away "bargaining unit work" to civilians or prevents the FOP from filing a grievance in the event thc City does hire civilians for "bargaining unit work.",3 Accordingly, the Court finds that Section 6.5 does not infringe upon the FOP's rights under the CBA or the FPAA and, therefore, overrules the FOP's objections to Section 6.5 of the December 2002 Decree.
10. Section 7.2 - Promotion Examination Process Section 7.2 of the proposed decree provides that "the promotion examination process which is presently in place shall remain in place throughout the tenn of this Decree." (December 2002 Decree § 7.2.) Section 7.2 requires independent validation if the City desires to amend the current process:
53 As to the unspecified "arbitration award," the FOP has not provided enough infol1l1ation to enable the Court to identity, much less analyze, the arbitration award they refer to. Because the Court is unable to consider any argument based on this unspecified award, the Court overrules the FOP's objection on this ground.
61

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 62 of 122
Should the City desire to amend that process, in addition to meeting any other requirements placed upon the City by the City Charter and the Collective Bargaining Agreement, all modifications shall be independently validated.
The FOP argues that "Section 7.2 of the Decree free:tes the current promotional examination process through the term of the CBA." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 12.) The FOP argues that Section 7.2 imposes, for purposes of future negotiations, an obligation on the FOP and the City to ensure that any proposed modifications presented during collective bargaining are "independently validated." CI!,h) The FOP argues that this imposition interferes with the union's rights under the CBA and the FPAA:
The Decree prohibits the FOP from obtaining changes to the CBA during midtenn negotiation with the City unless the FOP's proposed changes are validated. There is no such present requirement and validation is not required by law. Thus, this provision interferes with the FOP's right to make proposals under the CBA and the FPAA. (!4,)
Plaintiffs and the City begin by noting that the current promotional process has already been validated. (!4J They also argue that the "FOP has no right to prevent the City from
assuring that its promotional process is fair." 0054 Finally, Plaintiffs and the City argue that
Section 7.2 is a legitimate exercise of the City's management rights tmder Article 2 of the CBA
54 Plaintiffs and the City contend that the FOP has no substantive objection to Section 7.2, noting that the FOP does not allege that the current promotional process is lmfair or discriminatory to any officer. (Pis.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 6.) In this
is regard, Plaintiffs and the City argue that the "FOP's argument based upon pure speculation:
i.e., though the FOP does not object to the current promotional policy, it might attempt to propose an un-validated process at some time in the future." (lQJ
62

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 63 of 122
because "[r]cquiring independent validation of any new promotional process is an 'improved ... method and technique' o[Police Department operation." (Id. (quotifig CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(k)).)
First, the Court finds that Section 7.2 of the December 2002 Decree is a valid exercise of the City's specific management right under Section 2.2(k) of the CBA to "introduce new, improved, or different methods and techniques of Police Department operation or change existing methods and techniques." (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(k).) Second, with respect to the FOP's argument that the proposed decree infringes upon its right to negotiate over a mandatory subject of bargaining, the Court finds that nothing in Section 7.2 of the proposed decree prevents the FOP from bargaining with the City regarding amendments to the promotion examination process. (See December 2002 Decree § 7.2.) In fact, Section 7.2 specifically refers to "other requirements placed upon the City by the ... Collective Bargaining Agreement." (Id.)55
For these reasons, the Court finds that the FOP's rights to bargain are not implicated by Section 7.2 of the proposed decree. Thus, because the Court finds that Section 7.2 is an appropriate exercise ofthe City's management rights under Article 2 of the CBA and because the FOP is not precluded from bargaining with the City regarding :modifications to the process, the Court overrules the FOP's objections to Section 7.2.
11. Section 11 Discipline Section 11 of the December 2002 Decree requires the City to "reorganize Internal Affairs
55 Indeed, the Court linus that Section 7.2 of the December 2002 Decree imposes no obligation on the FOP whatsoever. (See iQJ Under Section "7.2, the onus of ensuring that all modifications to the promotion examination process are independently validated' faIls on 'the City, not the FOP.
63

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 64 of 122
into two squads" and to assign work to those squads according to the proposed decree. (December 2002 Decree § ll.!.) Specifically, Section 11.1 ofthc December 2002 Decree provides as follows:
The City shall reorganize Internal Affairs into two squads. The current internal affairs function shall be assigned to a new Investigations Squad charged with conducting investigations of complaints. A second squad, the Audit and Inspections Squad, shall be charged with assuring that the Department is operating consistent with the Department's policies. It shall conduct such investigations and audits of the Department's data as necessary to meet this charge. The Audit and Investigations Squad shall be staffed by two sergeants, which shall be newly ereated positions. (Id.) The FOP objects to Section 11 of the proposed decree, arguirig that the "decision to reorganize a Division of the TPD impacts the FOP's position as exclusive representative of the unit and its right to bargain." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 14-15.) In support of this argument, the FOP simply states that "[p]ast negotiations have specifically included negotiations of reorganizations." Mat 14.) The only contractual or legal authority the FOP identifies to support its argument that "reorganization is a matter which directly and dramatically affects the <terms and conditions of cmploymtmt' of many officers" is the general language in the Preamble of the CBA. (Id. at 14-15.) The FOP further objects to Section II on grounds thatthe creation of two new sergeant positions to staff the proposed Audit and Investigations squad, as wen as the detennination of the duties of those two new positions, arc subjel.-"is of mandatory bargaining about which the FOP has the right to negotiate under the CBA. (Id. at 15.) Finally, the FOP argues that Section 11 of the proposed decree violates current TPD policy by changing the scope
64

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 65 of 122
ofIntemal Affairs and by requiring all complaints to go through Internal Affairs. (!<!) Plaintiffs and the City argue that the adoption and implementation of Section 11 is within
the City's management rights. (pIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 8.) Specifically, Plaintiffs and the City contend that Section 11 faUs within the City's power to "reorganize the Police Department," to "detennine Police Department policy," "to direct the members of the Police Department," "to allocate and assign work," to "change existing methods and techniques" and to "detennine the amount of supenrision necessary." (PIs.' & City's Joint Rcsp. to FOP's Mot. at 8 (citing CBA Art. 2, §§ 2.2(0), (a), (c), (g), (k) and (I».) Finally, Plaintiffs and the City argue that the "new Audit and Inspections squad is simply an 'improved .. . technique of' supervising the Department." @.,(citingCBA Art. 2, § 2.2(k».)
First, the Court finds that the City has the right to reorganize Internal Affairs into two squads pursuant to Section 2.2(e) of the CBA, which specifically grants the City the righ~:
[t]o determine the organizational ehart of the Police Department, including the right to organize and reorganize the Police Depmiment and the determination of job classifications and ranks based upon duties assigned[.] (CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(e) (emphasis added).) The Court further finds that, pursuant to Section 2.2(g) of the CBA, the City has the right to assign and allocate work, as provided for in Section 11.1 of the proposod decree. (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(g) (granting the City the right to "allocate and assign work to all Employees within the Poliec Department"); see also id. § 2.2(c) (granting the City the right to "direct the members of the Police Department, including the right to hire, promote, or transfer any employee").) Second, the Court finds that the creation oftwo new sergeant positions in the proposed
65

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 66 of 122
"
Audit and Investigations squad is not a mandatory subject ofbargaihing about which the FOP
has the right to negotiate under the CBA. The CoUrt finds that the creation of these new positions is also within the City's enumerated management rights to "hire, promote or transfer
any employee;" to "allocate and assign work to all Employees within the Police Department;" and to "determine the organizational chart of the Police Department, including ... the determination ofjob classifications," (See CBA Art 2, § 2,2(c), (g), and (e).)
Because the eBA specifically grants the City the rights enumerated above and because the eBA specifically grants the City the power to "detcnnine Police Department policy," the Court rejects the FOP's argument that Section 11 violates current TPD policy. Accordingly, the Court overrules the FOP's objections to Section 11 ofthe December2002 Decree.
12. Section 13.4 - Retaliation Section 13.4 ofthe December 2002 Decree requires that the City promulgate a policy to
"provide tor appropriate disciplinary action for any supervisor who, upon receiving written
notice of specific acts of retaliation against any officer under their command, fails to investigate and take appropriate corrective action or to provide information as required by the ehain of command." (December 2002 Decree § 13.4.) The proposed decree includes a statement that "[t]his policy shall require that persons in the chain of command are held accountable for
eliminating retaliation directed at any officer under their command," (hlJ
The FOP objects to Section 13.4 of the proposed decree, stating that it is a "clear violation of the just cause standard established in Article 2.2(d) ofthe CBA." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 18-19.) The FOP argues that, by presupposing discipiine is appropriate and
66

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 67 of 122
by mandating that anyone in the chain of command be held accountable for eliminating retaliation, the proposed decree imposes a strict liability standard on the supervisors with respect to retaliation claims for their "failure to supervise." (!Q.J The FOP contends that "[pJredetennining that discipline must occur at some level, at least in tenns of 'corrective action' ... violates the 'just cause for discipline' standard of Article 2.2(d) of the CBA." (ld.) Finally, the FOP argues that Section 13.4 "violates TPD Policy 3l-304(b)(9)(f)(g) which requires that only the Chiefof Police makes final disciplinary decisions, not individual' supervisors." (!QJ
Plaintiffs and the City respond that the FOP's objection to Section 13.4 is "1noot because with or without the anti-discrimination policy [in Section 13 of the proposed decree], the City would have ·just cause' to discipline a supervisor who knowingly ignored illegal acts of retaliation committed by officers under his command." (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 10-11.) According to Plaintiffs and the City, the policy articulated in Section 13.4 "will just be a written articulation of what is known." (Id. at 11.)
Plaintiffs and the City further assert that Section 13.4 does not change the "just cause" disciplinary standard set forth in Section 2.2(d) of the CBA. (.!!l at 10.) Moreover, Plaintiffs and the City assert that nothing in the December 2002 Decree prevents the FOP from grieving any l.mjust discipline in the future. Finally, Plaintiffs and the City assert that "[a]nytime that the Decree calls for appropriate discipline or oorrcctive action, it is assumed that the City cannot violate its contractual duties under the CBA in taking any such corrective action. In other words, the City must still have 'just cause' before disciplining any officer." (Yd.)
The Court finds that Section 13.4 of the December 2002 Decree does not change the ''just 67

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 68 of 122
cause" disciplinary standard set forth in Section 2.2(d) of the CBA. (Compare December 2002 Decree § 13.4 with CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(d) (granting the City the right "[tlo discipline, suspend or tenninate any employee for good and sufficient cause (good and sufficient cause is synonymous with 'just cause')").) The COLIrt finds that the City has the right, pursuant to Section 2.2(a) of the CBA, to articulate a policy that holds knowing persons in the chain ofcommand accountable for eliminating retaliation directed at any officer under their command withOllt infringing on the FOP's right under the CBA to bargain regarding issues of discipline. (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(a) (granting the City the right to "determine Police Department policy").) The Court further finds that nothing in the proposed decree prevents the FOP or any of its members from grieving any unjust discipline in the future. Accordingly, the Court oven-ules the FOP's objections to Section 13.4.
13. Section 14.1 Backing Section 14.1 of the proposed decree mandates that the City "adopt and implement a policy which specifically sets out the obligation of officers to provide backing to their fellow officers and establishes procedures for officers to inform supervisors in writing of specific allcged problems which they are experiencing in receiving backing." (December 2002 Decree § 14. I.) The proposed decree further reqwres supervisors to investigate complaints of failure to provide backing and to take appropriate actions: \Vhen a supervisor receives written notice of such problems, he shall be required to investigate the complaint, take appropriate action, if necessary, and report the notice and all actions taken, or why no action was necessary, up the chain of command.
68

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 69 of 122
The FOP objects to Section (4.1 of the proposed decree, arguing that the requirement that the City adopt and implement a policy mandating backing of fellow officers and investigation of any failures establishes new work rules and "contemplates implementing a policy affecting the tenns and conditions of employment for which officers are subject to discipline and are mandatory subjects of bargaining." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 19·2"0.) The FOP also argues that the requirement that supervisors be held accountable for neglecting to act upon complaints that officers under their command failed to provide backing to other officers violates the just cause disciplinary standard in Section 2.2(d) of the eRA because it pre·supposes that some
action must be taken against the officer involved. iliL. at 20.) Finally~ the FOP argues that
Section 14.1 of the proposed decree places supervisors in a "catch 22" because it requires them to discipline officers in violation ofTPD policy, which provides that only the chief of police may discipline officers. (Id.)
Plaintiffs and the City contend that it is an "[e]xisting practice of the City to investigate and discipline officers for failure to back (no new rule)." (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 11.) Plaintiffs and the City, therefore, state that Section 14.1 of the proposed decree is just a vtritten articulation of existing practice. Moreover, the Plaintiffs and the City argue that, with or without this policy, the City would have "just cause" to discipline a supervisor who knowingly allowed officers under his or her command to shirk their duty to provide backing to other officers. (Id.) Plaintiffs and the City further contend that Section 14.1 of the proposed decree '''pre-supposes' nothing m because Section 14.1 states that the supervisor will take
69

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 70 of 122
appropriate action "ifnecessary" and report up the chain of command why he or she did or did not take action. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff:, and the City argue that the' policy articulated in Section 14.1 of the December 2002 Decree "merely requires more supervision and accountability, and helps assure officer safety, consistent with the City's management rights." (Id. (citing CBA Art.
2, § 2.2(d), (t), 0), and (I».)
First, the Court finds that the City's adoption and implementation of a policy on backing fellow officers is not a new work rule because, according to Chief Been, the TPD already has an infonnal policy on backing officers. (1121/03 Tr. at 224: 13-17.) Second, the Court finds that implementing a backing policy and providing for its enforcement is within the power of the City under Article 2 of the CllA. (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(1) (granting the City power to "determine the safety, health, and property protection measures for the Police Department"); id. § 2.2(j) (granting the City right to "establish and enforce Police Department rules) regulations, and orders"); see also id. § 2.2(1) (granting the City the right to "determine the amollnt of supervision necessary").)
The Court further finds that nothing in Section 14.1 of the proposed decree provides a
new basis for discipline or alters the "just cause" disciplinary standard under Section 2.2(d) of the eBA. (Compare December 2002 Decree § 14.1 with CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(d); see also 1127103 Tr. at 501 :6_11.)56 The Court rejects the FOP's argument that Section 14.1 pre-supposes that
56 FOP witness Sergeant David M. Brockman testified at the fairness hearings that officers may currently be disciplined for failing to bac,k another officer:
Q. Is it your job to back other officers? 70

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 71 of 122

some action be taken against the officer involved because the plain language of Section 14.1 requires only that the supervisor take appropriate action "if necessary" and then to report up the chain of command why action was or was not taken. (See December 2002 Decree § 14.1 (requiring supervisor to "take appropriate action, ifnecessary, and report the notice and all actions taken, or why no action was necessary, up the chain of command") (emphasis added).) For these reasons, the Court overrules the FOP's objections to Section 14.1 ofthe December 2002 Decree.
14. Section 15.1-- Evaluations Section 15.1 of the December 2002 Decree provides, in its entirety, as follows: The City shall continue the past practice of providing officers who conclude that a cumulative rating of unsatisfactory or lower on their evaluation is unfair, the right to appeal either through their chain of command or where appropriate througb the appeal process contruned in thc City's discrimination policy. (December 2002 Dec,-ee § 15.1.) The FOP objects to Section 15.1 of the December 2002 Decree, arguing that it "provides a special grievance system for evaluations that is unavailable for any other alleged violation of the CBA and disregards the CBA's existing grievance procedures." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at

A. Q. A. Q. A.
(hl.)

That's part of, yes, sir. Can you be disciplined if you don't back other officers? I think I probably can. Even though there's no written rule to that effect? That's correct.

71

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 72 of 122
21.) The FOP contends that Section 15.1 directly conflicts with Article 7 of the CBA. which provides that grievances shall be filed with the Grievance Committee, because SC(..'iion 15.1 purports to implement a new grievance process with the right to appeal through the chain of command.
Plaintiffs and the City argue that the FOP mischaractcrizes Section 15.1 of the proposed decree because it does not alter current TPD practice. Plaintiffs and the City note that the following language in the proposed decree supports their contention: "'City shall continue the
past practice of providing officers ... the right to appeal ... through their chain of command."
(December 2002 Decree § 15.1.) The Court finds that, based upon the testimony of Chief Been at the fairness hearings, it
is current TPD practice for officers to be afforded the right to appeal unsatisfactory perfonuance evaluations directly through their chain of command. (1121103 at 228 :8-11.)>7 The Court further finds that the language in the December 2002 Decree makes clear that it is not intended to change any TPD practices. (See December 2002 Decree § 15.1; see also id. § 1.5 (providing that proposed decree shall be read to be in accordance with language in the CBA).) For these reasons, the Court overrules the FOP's objections to Section 15.1 of the December 2002 Decrcc.
~7 With respect to this question, ChicfBeen testified as follows: Q. Looking at 15.1, would you identify whether that is in fact the past
practice? A. Certainly, the first part of it is a past practice, where you appeal through the chain
of command. @J
72

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 73 of 122
15. Section 17.1 ._" partnership in Pol1cing
Section 17.1 of the proposed decree requires the City to "adopt and implement specific
policies which promote the ('Teation of a partnership between police officers and citizens in order to provide for proactive problem solving between the police, individual citizens, other government agencies and the community." (December 2002 Decree § 17.1.)
The FOP objects to Section 17.1 on the following grounds: The Decree mandates thc creation of new, non-bargained for, polices [sic] to "create the promotion. of a partnership between police officers and citizCDS ...." Presumably, if the officer violates these new polices, [sic] he/she is subject to discipline. Thus, these policies arc mandatory subje("is of bargaining. Moreover, while the Decree recognizes that implementation of CALEA58 standards will comply with § 17.1, the standards are not provided. Hence, the FOP' cannot make a more definite objection without more infonnation. (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 23 (footnote not in original).) Plaintiffs and the City argue that developing a "partnership in -policing" is simply a "new, improved ... method(] and technique[] of Police Department Operation," and therefore a pcnnissible exercise ofthe City'S management rights under Article 2 of the CBA. (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 13 (citing CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(k)).) Plaintiffs and the City further argue that, because the FOP "does not allege that policies to promote partnership in
58 CALEA is the "private, nonprofit corporation, the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. ("CALEA"), which was founded in 1979 by the International Association of Chiefs ofPolicc ("IACP"), the National Organization ofBlack Law Enforcement Executives ("NOBLE"), the National Sheriffs' Association ("NSA") and the Police Executive Research Forum ("PERF")." (December 2002 Decree § 2.1.) According to the December 2002 Decree, "CALEA accreditation embodies the only comprehensive standards for law enforcement
agencies in North America." (I4J
73

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 74 of 122
policing would be unfair or discriminatory to any officer," the FOP has no substantive objection to Section 17.1 of the December 2002 Decree. (ld.)
The Court finds that Section 17.1'3 requirement that the City develop and implement a "partnership in policing" policy is within the City's enumerated rights under Article 2 of the CBA to "detennine Police Department policy" and to "introduce new, improved, or different methods and techniques of Police Department operation or change existing methods and techniques." (See CDA Art. 2, § 2.2(a) and (b).) The Court further finds that, for the same
reasons discussed with respect to Sections 3.1 and 13.4 above, nothing in Section 17.1 provides a
new basis for discipline or changes thc 'just cause" disciplinary standard set forth in Section 2.2(d) of the CBA. (Compare December 2002 Decree § 17.1 with CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(d).)" Accordingly, the Court ovenulcs the FOP's objections to Section 17.1 of the December 2002 Decree.
16. Section 18.3 - Documenting Citizen Complaints Section 18.3 of the December 2002 Decree reqwres that, when a supervisor is called to respond to a complaint by a citizen about an officer's conduct, the supervisor is required to document the complaint and file a written report concerning the matter. (December 2002 Decree § 18.3.) The reports prepared by the supervisor are to bc fonvarded through the chain of command and a record thereof maintaincd in Internal Affairs. (1&) TIic ohligation to assure that the complaints are handled appropriately falls on each person in the chain of command. (hlJ
59 Once again, the Court obsenres: that nothing in the proposed decree prevents the FOP or any of its members from grieving any unjust discipline in the future.
74

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 75 of 122
The FOP objects to Section 18.3 orthe December 2002 Decree, arguing that, because the
complaint process set out in Section 18.3 is different from current methods of operation, 1t involves a subject of mandatory bargaining that must be negotiated with the FOP. (FOP's
Objections, Ex, A at 23-24,) The FOP argues that the language in Section 183 providing that
"[e]ach person in the chain of command shall be obligated to assure that such complaints Vi/erc
handled appropriately" subjects every officer in the chain of command to new work mles. (1!J
The FOP also asserts that this language provides a new basis for discipline and contradicts the "just cause" standard in Section 2.2(d) of the eBA:
This subjects every officer in the chain of command to new work rules and contraven,es the baqic established chain of command_ structure by requiring that an officer lower on the chain ensure that an officer higher on the chain respond "appropriately" to the complaint or bc subject to discipline. This is a violation of Article 2.2 of the CBA) prohibiting disciplinary action against one person based upon the actions of another, particulru-Iy n higher ranking officer over whom the person has no control. This section also seemingly establishes a strict liability standard for discipline in direct contradiction to the 'just cause" standard ofCBA Article 22(d),
C!!l at 24.)60
Plaintiffs and the City maintain that, "[rlequiring written documentation of citizen
complaints and that complaints are handled properly up the chain of command, falls squarely
under the City's Management Right to 'determine the amount of supervision necessary' . , . [and
to implement] a 'change in existing methods or techniques.'" (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to
60 The FOP further argues that Section 18.3 is in direct contradiction to "other complaint
procedures as provided in the CBA." 00 However, the FOP has failed to specifically identify
any of these "other complaint procedures," Accordingly, the Court overrules the FOP's objection on this ground.
75

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 76 of 122
FOP's Mot., Ex, A at 13 (citing CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(1) and (k».) Plaintiffs and the City further maintain that the FOP rnischaracterizes the proposed decree; asserting that Section 18.3 docs not require inferior officers to be responsible for the actions of supervisorsY
The Court finds that the City has the authority, pursuant to the management rights provision of the CBA, to establiskthc complaint process contained in Section 18.3 of the December 2002 Decree. Specificit11y, the Court finds that the establishment of this system falls within the City's enumerated rights under Article 2 of the CBA to "introduce new, improved, or different methods and techniques ofPolice Department operation or change existing techniques" and to "determine the amount of supervision necessary." (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(k) and (1) (emphasis added).) Therefore, because the Court finds that Section 18.3 is a valid exercise of the City's management rights powers, the COl.ut concludes that Section 18.3 docs not, as the FOP asserts, set forth a new work rule or otherwise involve a subject of mandatory bargaining. The Court notes that, because Section 18.3 ofthe December 2002 Decree must be read to be in accordance with the CBA, Section 18.3 shall not be construed to mean that officers are
responsible fOf the actions oftheif superiors. (December 2002 Decree § 1.5.)62 For these
61 Plaintiffs and the City assert that the FOP has no substantive objection to Section 18.3 of the proposed decree and that the "[ilrivolousness of [their] objection is evident by FOP
claiming that whether the Decree proposes the 'best' procedure is 'irrelevant. '" M (citing FOP's
Objections, Ex. A at 23 (''\Vhether this is the 'best' procedure is irrelevant; it is the current procedure.")).)
62 The Court observes that, like many other sections of the proposed decree, Section 18.3 does not contain any new disciplinary rules or changc the "just cause'; disCiplinary standard set
S forth in Section 2.2 of the CBA. (Compare December 2002 Decree 18.3 with CBA Art. 2,
§ 2.2(d).) 76

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 77 of 122
reasons, the Court overrules the FOP's objections to 'Section 1-8.3 of the December 2002 Decrec. 17. Section 18.6 - Complaint Process Section 18.6 of the proposed decree sets standards for the assessment of credibility by
supervisors taking disciplinary actions and states, in pertinent part, as follows:
There shall be no automatic preference of an officer's statement over a
complainant's statement in investigations. Credibility determinations shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of the officer's history of complaints and disciplinary records and the complainant's criminal history for crimes involving truth and veracity ... , (December 2002 Decree § 18.6 (emphasis added).) The FOP argues that this provision is "glaringly contradictory to Article 11,2 of the CBA" because it "makes no distinction for complaints that have been sustained, not sustained or deemed utterly unfounded." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 25.) Atuc1e 0, Section 11.2 of the CBA provides, in pertinent part: Complaints that were investigated and dctermined to be untounded, exonerated or not sustained shall not be considered, ~~tilized, or compiled in any report to detennine disciplinary action that might be taken in regards to an investigation. (eBA Art. ll, § 11.2.) Plaintiffs and the City argue that, to the cxtent the Court finds an actual conflict between the December 2002 Decree and the CBA, this conflict may be dealt wIth by Section 1.5 of the proposed decree, which requires the decree to be read to be in accordance with the eBA, (December 2002 Decree § 1.5,) Plaintiffs and the City maintain that the new policy contained in Section 18.6 of the proposed decree must be read not to include '\mfbunded, exonerated or not sustained" complaints in making detcnninations about an officer's credibility.
77

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 78 of 122
The Court finds that, on its face, the language of Section 18.6 of the proposed decree arguably conflicts with Section 112 of the CBA The Court, however, believes that under the rule of construction contained in Section 1.5 of the December 2002 Decree, Section 18.6 should be read, as Plaintiffs and the City submit, not to include "unfounded, exonerated or not sustained" complaints. Therefore, the Court finds that Section 18.6 of the proposed decree can be constnled in a manner that does not "violate the FOP's contractual rights under"the CBA. Specifically, the phrase "officer's history of complaints" should be construed so as to exclude "[cJomplaints that were investigated and determined to be unfounded'; exonerated, or not sustained" for the purpose of making credibility determinations relevant to Section 18.6 of the proposed decree. Accordingly, the Court overrules the FOP's objections to Section 18.6.
18. Section 18.7 - Withdrawn Citizens' Complaints Section 18.7 ofthc December 2002 Decree requires investigation and disposition of citizens' complaints of "racial discrimination, use of force, or h<lrassment" that are withdrawn or as to which the complainant is unavailable to give a statement. Section 18.7 provides in its entirety as follows: Investigations ofcomplaints of racial disl-nmination, use of force, or harassment shall not be closed without rendering a disposition and appropriate discipline, if necessary, because the complainant withdraws the complaint or is unavailable to give a statement. Such complaints shall be investigated to the fullest extent possible to detennine whether thc complaint is corroborated and the circumstances which lead to the withdrawal of the complaint. (December 2002 Decree § 18.7.) Thc FOP argues that Section 18.7 of the proposed decree "violates the officers'
78

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 79 of 122
constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and violates the FOP's right to bargain and negotiate such issues that involve the discipline of officers." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 26-27.) First, the FOP argues that an individual officer's due process rights will be violated if the complainant is unavailable to give a statement (or has never given a statement), and the officer is disciplined without ever having the chance to challenge the complainant's version of events.
(J.d:,t3 Second, the FOP argues tbat Section 18.7 is a subject of mandatory bargaining because it
"requires complJints to be investigated in accordance with the new standard of 'to the fullest extent possible,'~' and that this "imposes a new work rule on Internal Affairs bargaining unit
members upon which they are subject to potential discipline." (hlJ In response to the FOP's due process argument, Plaintiffs and the City contend that the
FOP mischaracterizes the December 2002 Decree in that Section 18.7 does not take away an aUieer's right to confront his or her accusers. (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 14.) Plaintiffs and the City, instead, cxplain that the proposed decree "states that withdrawn complaints shall be investigated, inc1udiItg the circumstances which led to the withdrawal ofthc complaints." (lQJ64 Plaintiffs and the City emphasize that "all comp1aints must be oonoborated," Q4J
In response to the FOP's argument that Section 18.7 concerns a subject ofmandatory bargaining, Plaintiffs and the City further contend that Section 18.7 falls squarely under the
63 The FOP contends that "Due Proccss requires that the credibility of the complainant be
addressed and the officer be given the opportunity to confront his accuser." (MJ
61 Plaintiffs and the City state that the purpose of Section 18.7 of the proposed decree "is to assure that citizens are not being intimidated into withdrawing complaints[.]" (ld.)
79

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 80 of 122
·~.
City'5 express management rights to "detennine the amount of supervision necessary" and to "change existing methods or techniques." (Id. (citing eBA Art. 2, § 2.2(1) and (k)).) Moreover, Plaintitls and the City argue that "with or without this policy, it would be just cause for the City to discipline an officer who intimidated a citizen into \vithdrawing a complaint." (pIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot, Ex. A at 14.)
With respect to the FOP's due process argument, the Court finds that Section 18.7 of the December 2002 Decree prohibits only the closing of citizen complaints ofracial discrimination, use of force, or harassment simply because the complainant withdraws the complaint or is unavailable to give a statement. (See December 2002 Decree § 18.7.) The Court further finds that Section 18.7 provides that withdrawn complaints shall be "investigated to the fullest extent possible to determine whether the complaint is corroborated and the circumstances which lead to the withdrawal of the complaint." (Id.) Thus, the Court finds no language in the proposed decree to support the FOP's assertion that officers \Yin be deprived of the right to confront their accusers in violation oft11e Constitution. The Court is satisfied that the emphasis on corrobonttion of complaints and detennination of the circumstances of withdrawals prote("i officers' due process rights to either question an accuser, or to have the complaint discounted. For these reasons, the Court overrules the FOP's objections to Section 18.7 on due process grounds.
The Court further finds that Section 18.7 of the proposed decf¢':e falls within the City's enumerated management rights under the CBA "[t}o detennine the amount of supervision necessary" and "[t]o introduce new, improved, or different methods and techniques ofPolice
80

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 81 of 122
Department operation or to change existing methods and techniques." (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(1) and (k).) Moreover, the Court finds that any discipline of an officer who intimidates a citizen into withdrawing a complaint falls within the City's power to disdpline officers for 'just cause." (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(d).)65 Accordingly, because the Court finds that Section 18.7 does not concern a mandatory subject ofbargaining or impennissibly infringe upon the FOP's rights under the CBA and the FPAA, the Court overrules the FOP's objection that Section 18.7.
19. Section 18.8 - Investigating Multiple Withdrawn Complaints Section 18.8 of the December 2002 Decree requires that the City adopt and implement a policy "providing that ifwithin a three (3) year period the Department receives three (3) requests to withdraw complaints against any officer, upon receipt of the third request, the City shall refuse that request and proceed to investigate fully the present complaint as well as those which have been withdrawn." (December 2002 Decree § J8.8.) First, the FOP objects to Section 18.8, claiming that it violates the CBA Preamble and Sections 1.1, 9.8, and 11.3 of the CBA, and the FPAA because it "requires the City, without FOP consent, to adopt and implement a policy regarding investigations." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 28.) Second, the FOP objects to Section 18.8 on the grounds that Section 11.2 of the CBA contains an expungement provision with respect to documents (lncluding withdrawn complaints), and that disciplining an officer for a complaint filed three years ago would not constitute 'just
65 The Court notes that the phrase "to the fullest extent possible" shall be construed to be compatible with the 'just cause" standard set forth in Section 2.2(d) o-fthe CBA. (See December 2002 Decree § 1.5 (providing that proposed decree shall be read to be in accordance with lrulguage in the CBA).)
81

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 82 of 122
cause" as required by Section 2.2(d) ofthe CBA and would implicate constitutional due process Issues.
Plaintiffs and the City contend that, requiring a "full investigation ofwithdrawn citizen complaints, falls squarely under the City's Management Right to 'detcnnine the amount of supervision necessary' ... and also a 'change in existing methods or techniques. ", (PIs.' & City's Joint Rasp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 14-15 (citing CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(1) and (k».) Plaintiffs and the City further maintain that, "[iJfthe FOP has a valid argument that an investigation of an officer's conduct is barred by applicable limitations period or the CBA, it can make those
objections at the appropriate time." iliL. at 15.)
The Court finds that the City's adoption of a policy of investigating withdrawn complaints falls within the City'S enumerated management rights under Article 2 of the CBA to "dctennine the amount of supervision necessary," to "detennine Police Department policy," and to "change existing methods and techniques" ofTPD operation. (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(1), (a), and (k).) The Court further finds that, as specifically provided for in Section 1.5 of the December 2002 Decree, Section 18.8 must be read in accordance with the CBA. Therefore, to the extent that the expungement provision of Se(..'1ion 11.2 ofthe eBA is implicated by Section 18.81n a particular case, the language in Section 11.2 controls. Accordingly, the Court finds that there shall be no investigation with respect to withdrawn complaints that are required to be expunged pursuant to Section 11.2 of the CBA. (See December 2002 Decree § 1.5 (providing
82

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 83 of 122
that proposed decree shall be read to be in accordance with language in the CBA).)66 For these
rcasons, the Court ovenules the FOP's objections to Section 18.8 of the December 2002 Decree. 20. Section 19 - Field Training Officers Section 19.1 of the proposed decree requires the City to develop and implement policies
to govern the selection and removal ofField Training Officers ("FTOs"). (December 2002 Decree § 19.1.) The propased decree requires that "[aJfficers and supervisors serving in the FTO
program shall have a minimum of five (5) years experience on the Department." ffiD "Officers
or supervisors currently serving in the FTO program shall be exempt from this five (5) year
requirement." (MJ Undcr this section of the proposed decree, "[tJhe City shall adopt valid
criteria far the selectian and evaluation ofFTOs," and "[oJfficers who fail to maintain yearly perfonnance evaluations with a cumulative rating of 'exceeds' sha11 be removed as FTOs." (Id.)
The FOP objects to Section J9.1, arguing that the proposed decree establishes, without negotiation with the union, new selection and removal criteria for FTOs, thereby violating the FOP's rights as exclusive bargaining agent under the CBA Preamble and Sections 1.1, 9.8, and 11.3 of the CBA. (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 28-29.) The FOP further argues that Section 19.1 violates Section 21.6 of the CBA because: (1) the proposed decree unilaterally creates new selection requirements that are not contained in Section 21.6 ofthe CBA, which states simply
66 Therefore, although the Court finds that Section 18.8 of the December 2002 Decree
does not infringe upon the FOP's rights under the CBA and the FPAA, the Court notes that nothing in the proposed decree prevents the FOP from filing a grievance if an ofHcer's conduct, otherwise barred by applicable limitations period or Sectiorl 11.2 of the CBA, is subsequently investigated by the TPD.
83

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 84 of 122
that FTOs will be "designated;"67 and (2) the proposed decree "implicates monetaty losses for current FTOs ... if an FTO is removed under the proposed new standards of removal." (JQJ
Finally, the FOP argues that the -proposed decree mandates a new policy for the removal ofFTOs
and that, under Section 2.2(d) of the CBA, removal ofFTOs must be based on the "just cause"
standard, and not any other non-negotiated standard. a4J
With respect to the fOP's objection that Section 19.1 violates the union's rights as exclusive bargaining agent, PlaintifIs and the City maintain that the City has the power under Section 2.2(k) of the CBA to implement Section 19.1 of the proposed decree because Section 19.1 is simply a change in existing methods ofTPD operation. (Pis.' & City's Joint Rcsp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 15.) Plaintiffs and the City further maintain that Section 19.1 of the proposed decree does not touch upon the issue of discipline because the requirement that FTOs "exceed" expectations is simply a continuing job qualification. (J,Q,) Plaintiffs and the City
argue that, for this reason, "removal would not constitute 'discipline. m (hlJ
With respect to thc FOP's objection to Section 19.1 of the proposed decree based on Section 21.6 of the CBA, Plaintiffs and the City contend that Section 21.6 does not set minimum
67 Section 21.6 of the CBA states, in pertinent part, as follows: Each Employee designated as a Field Training Officer shall be paid one (1) hour of overtime pay, per shift, at two times the Employee's regular rate of pay, while involved in actual training assignments with an Apprentice Police Officer. Corporal and Sergeant rank personnel designated as a Field Training Supervisor shall be paid one (1) hour of overtime pay, per shift~ at two times the Employee'S regular rate of pay. while involved in actual training assignments with newly promoted supervisors ofa similar rank . , .. (CBA Art. 21, § 21.6 (emphasis added).)
84

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 85 of 122
experience requirements for FTOs and that Section 21.6 does not limit the City's ability to determine the qualifications for FTOs. (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 15,) Plaintiffs and the City, therefore, argue that Section 19.1 of the proposed decree does not conflict with Section 21.6 or any other provision oftbe CBA.
The Court finds that Section 19.1 of the December 2002 Decree is a valid exercise of the City's power under Section 2.2(k) ofthe CBA "[t]o introduce new, improved, or different methods and techniques ofPolice Department operation or change exjsting methods and techniques." (See CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(k).) The Court further finds that Section 19.1 does not violate Section 21.6 of the CBA because Section 21.6 does not set minimum experience requirements for FTOs, nor does it limit the City's ability to determine those qualifications. (See CBA Alt. 21, § 21.6 (describing FTOs as "designated" but not identifYing the manner in which they are designated).) Finally, the Court rejects the FOP's argument that Section 19.1 involves discipline and is therefore a mandatory subject of bargaining. Instead, the Court finds that the requirement that FTOs are to "maintain yearly perfonnance evaluations with a cumulative rating of 'exceeds'" is simply a continuing job quali:5-cation and, therefore, not a basis for discipline. For these reasons, the Court overrules the FOP's objections that Section 19.1 of the proposed decree infringes on the FOP's rights as exclusive bargaining agent under the CBA and the FPAA.
Section 19.2 of the proposed decree requires the City to increase supervision ofFTOs, and provides that "APOS,68 FTO supervisors, and FTO peers shall be required lo evaluate FTOs."
6~ As defined in Section 10.2 of the December 2002 Decree, an "APO" is an Apprentice
Police Officer. (December 2002 Decree § 10.2.) .
85

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 86 of 122
C!ll § 19.2 (footnote not in original).) The FOP objects to Section 19.2. arguing that it
"'implements a new FTO evaluation process not currently in existence and violates the FOP's right to bargain and negotiate mandatory subjects of bargaining [under] Article 11.3 of the
CBA," @ at 29.) In response to this objection, Plaintiffs and the City argue that this section falls directly under the City's express management right "[tJo detennine the amount of
supervision necessary[.]" C!ll (citing eBA Art. 2, § 2.2(1»).)
The Court finds that Section 19.2 of the December 2002 Decree, which mandates that "[t]hc City shall increase supervision of field training," fits squarely within the City's enumerated right under Section 2.2(1) ufthe CBA to "determine the amount of supervision necessary." Accordingly, the Court finds that Section 19.2 is a valid exercise of the City's management rights under Articlc 2 of the CBA and overrules the FOP's objection to this provision.
Section 19.3 of the December 2002 Decree provides that <0(0]fficers who use racial or gender related epithets or demonstrate racial or gender bias in their job perfonnance shall be disqualified from serving as FTOs and subject to disciplinary review." lli:!,. § 19.3.) The FOP objects to Section 19.3 of the proposed decree, arguing that it "explicitly violates Article 2.2(d) of the CBA by pre~determjning, regardless of the facts or circumstances, the level of discipline to be imposed for such conduct - removal from the FTO program." (Id.)69 In response to this objection, Plaintiffs and the City argue: (1) that it is '"[a]Iready the practice ofTPD to remove
69 In its objections, the FOP notes that it objects to Section 19,3 of the December 2002 Decree, even though "the Tulsa FOP does not condone gender or racial epithets or bias." (@
86

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 87 of 122
officers from [the] FTO program who use racial epitaphs [sic];" and (2) that, regardless of the policy contained in Section 19.3, there would be "just cause" to remove an FTO if it were proven that he or she had used racial epithets or had demonstrated racial bias.
The Court finds that Section 19.3 of the December 2002 Decree, which requires "[o]1licers who use racial or gender related epithets or demonstrate racial or gender bias in their job pcrfonnance" to be "disqualified from serving as FTOs and subject to disciplinary review," is a pennissible exercise of the City's authority under Article 2 of the CBA As described above, Section 2.2(d) of the CBA provides the City the right "[tJo discipline, suspend Of tenninate any employee for good and sufficient cause." (CBA Art. 2, § 2.2(d).) The Court finds that Scction 19.3 of the proposed decree does not change the ':iust cause" disciplinary standard set forth in the CBA. Accordingly, the Court finds that Section 19.3 is a pennissible exercise of the City's management rights under Article 2 of the CBA and thus overrules the FOP's objections to this provision.
21. Section 27 - Reporting by the City Section 27.2 ofthe proposed decree requires that the City maintain, consistent with the
Oklahoma Open Records Act, OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, &24A.l, ct seq., the records necessary to
document its compliance with the tenns of the proposed decree and all records required by or developed under the proposed dccree. (December 2002 Decree § 27.2.) Section 27.4 ofthe proposed decree provides that "[c]ounsel for Plaintiffs shall be providcd access to the docwnents
87

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 88 of 122
and data listed in Paragraphs 26.5 and 27.3 upon reasonable request to the City." (IfL § 27.4.)10
Under Section 27.4, "Plaintiffs may request that the City grant appropriate access to any other
document or class of documents which are relevant to determining the City's compliance with
this Decree which are otherwise considered open records under the Oklahoma Open Records
Act." (Id.)
The FOP argues that Section 27.4 ofthe December 2002 Decree violates Section 11.2 of
the CBA because of the possibility that data distributed to and maintalned by counsel for
Plaintiff.:; pursuant to Section 27.4 may not be purged in accordance with Section 11.2 of the
CBA." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 33-34.) The FOP argues that, by failing to restrict the
70 Section 26.5 of the December 2002 Decree provides thnt an independent auditor shall have access to: (1) the data collected pursuant to Section 3 of the proposed decree and any existing completed analysis thereof; and (2) "additional infonnation and access to documents, data, or staffthat the Independent Auditor may require to carry out the Independent Auditor's responsibilities under this Decree." (December 2002 DC("Tee § 26.5.) Section 265 of the proposed decree specifically provides that Plaintiffs' counsel shall not have access to the City'S reasons for rejecting certain applicants to the Academy, which i~ information that is available to the Independent Auditor under the proposed decree. (IQ)
Section 27.3 enumerates fifteen (15) categories of data that the Independent Auditor shall have access to under the proposed decree. (Id. § 27.3.) One category of data identified in Section 27.3 includes inter alia: "personnel orders transferring or reassigning officers; orders granting or denying discipline; orders granting or denying promotions; documents relating to the c-Ounseling of officers under [Section 11.4 of the proposed decree]; all Internal Affairs investigations; awards and commendations given to officers; documentation ofthe informal resolution of citizen complaints; run in reports; and synopsis and conclusion of after action reports." (IfL § 27.3.1.)
71 Article 11, Section 11.2 of the CBA provides, in pertinent part:
After the statute oflimitations expires on civil or criminal matters, not sustained or unfounded a1iegations against an Employee shall be removed from the Employee's file, provided there have been no similar allegations during the
88

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 89 of 122
amount of time Plaintiffs' counsel may keep the dat~ Section 27.4 of the proposed decree
violates Section 11.2 of the CBA. (ill
In response to the FOP's objection, Plaintiffs and the City maintain that data that is to be
expunged pursuant to Section 11.2 of the CBA shallllot be used against individual officers: Clearly, if [SectionJ 11.2 requires the cxpungemcnt of certain data, then that data can not be held against the officer as an individual .... [TJbe parties will not, and have not violated any specific portion of the CBA.
(pIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot. at 17.) As described above, Section 11.2 of the CBA provides that the City shall remove certain
information from an employee's file, refrain from considering certain information \Vith respect to disciplinary issues, and "purge and expunge[]" certain documents after the passage of time as
enumerated in that section. The FOP has not alerted the Court to any provision in the CBA requiring the application of Section 11.2 to third parties, nOT has the Court located onc.
Therefore, the Court finds that Section 11.2 ofthe CBA does not require counsel for Plaintiffs to
above-mentioned period. However, disciplinary actions listed below may not be
considered, utilized, or be the basis of future disciplinary decisions, in part or whole after the times identified below expire.
1. Counseling documentation shan be purged and expunged after the passage of one (1) year.
2, Division Letters of Reprimand shall be purged and expunged after the passage ofone (I) year.
3. Department Letters of Reprimand shall be purged and expunged after the passage of three (3) years.
4. Suspensions and Orders of Demotion shall be purged and expunged after the passage offive (5) years.
(eBA Art. 11, § J 1.2,) 89

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 90 of 122
purge any documents provided under the December 2002 Decree.12 Of course, the Court notes
that, pursuant to Section 1.5 of the proposed de("Tee, any infonnation obtained by Plaintiffs'
counsel pursuant to Scction 27.4 of the proposed decree, shall not be used as a basis for
discipline by the TPD after the date for expungemcnt has passed. 73 For these reasons, the Court
overrules the FOP's objections to Section 27 of the proposed decree.
22. Section 29.1 - Remedies for Denial of Promotions
Section 29.1 of the December 2002 Decree provides in its entirety as follows:
Claimants who are found to have been denied a promotion shall be entitled to all Title VII relief where justified by the evidence, law and equities. The total amount of back pay for all claimants for claims of a discriminatory denial of promotion shall be limited to $200,000. Punitive damages shall not be sought or awarded. (December 2002 Decree § 29.1)"
72 The inapplicability of Section 11.2 of the CBA to third parties, in this case, Plaintiffs' counsel, is supported by the fact that third parties generally do not have control over documents contained in the TPD's files and also lack the power to discipline any officer.
73 The Court observes that the intent of the parties, as explained in Plaintiffs' and the City'S response to the FOP's objections, is that data required to be expunged pursuant to Section 11.2 of the CBA shall not be "held against the officer as an individual." (See PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot. at 17.) In this regard, the Court notes that nothing in the December 2002 Decree prevents the FOP from filing a grievance over whether the City has improperly used infoIDlation that should have been expunged against an individual officer.
74 Section 29.1 of the proposed decree must be read in tandem with Section 28.1 of the proposed decree, which provides in its entirety as follows:
Except as otherwise provided herein, any class member who vyishcs to assert an individual claim ofrace discrimination, retaliation, wrongful discharge, or harassment in employment arising before August 1, 2001 may do so by filing with the Court a sworn, detailed statement of claim(s) within sixty (60) days of the Court's entry of this Deeree. Such statement shall, at a minimum, set forth the specific facts upon which it is based, the date of each challenged occurrence, the
90

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 91 of 122
The FOP objects to Section 29.1 of the proposed decree because it "seems to include
retroactive seniority and would violate the exi.sting seniority rights of officers in their rank."
(FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 34 (citing CBA Art. 6, § 6.1(b) and 42 U.S.C. 2000c,2(h».),5 The
FOP's objection in this regard is as follows:
Rank seniority is used to select shifts, days otf, and leave. CRA Art. 6.I(b); 42 USCA §2000e,2(h). Such seniority would be granted after a magistrate trial without right ofappeal. Other current officers would have thdr seniority rights effected [sic] without waiving a trial before a jury or an Article TIl judge and without complete judicial detennination of whether actual discrimination had occurred. Moreover, the effected [sic] officers would be denied their right to intervene and contest the factual predicate, discrimination, used to deny then [sic] their seniority rights, all of which are in violation of the eBA.
(Id.) The FOP further objects to Section 29.1 of the proposed decree~ arguing that it "directly
contradicts the CBA's dispute resolution process set out in Article 7 of the eSA." ilil at 35.)
Plaintiffs and the City urge the Court to overrule the FOP's objection to Section 29.1,
identity, address and telephone number of all knO\VIl witnesses and documentary evidence, and the specific monetary hann claimed .... An answer shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the daim filing setting forth the specific facts upon which the answer is based, the identity, and the address and telephone number of all knO\V11 witnesses and documentary evidence.. ,. Reasonable limited and expedited discovery shall be allowed. Claims which are not resolved by agreement shall be heard and ruled upon by a magistrate judge appointed by the Court. The claimant retains the burden of proof. The City retains its legal and factual defenses, Motions to dismiss and for complete or partial summary judgment are pennitted by either the claimant or defendant. There shall be no appeal from a decision of the magistrate judge.
(Id. § 28.1.) The FOP does not object to Section 28.1 of the proposed decree.
75 Section 6. 1(b) of the CBA provides in its entirety as follows: "Subsequent seniority dates for Employees shan commence on the effective date of promotion to a higher rank or classification."
9]

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 92 of 122
arguing that the FOP cannot prevent officers fyom obtaining relief under Title VII. Plaintiffs and the City note that an "individual officer could only conceivably be granted retroactive seniority after proving the merits of his racial discrimination in promotions claim." (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 17.)
The Court notes that, under the plain language of Section 29.1, only "[cJlairnants who are f01.Uld to have been denied a promotion shall be entitled to all Title VII relief" (December 2002 Decree § 29.1.)16 The fact that Section 29.1 limits the award of equitable rehefto those persons who are found to have been denied a promotion under Title VII is significant because COurt8 have the plenary power "to issue injunctive relief and to order such affinnativc action as may be appropriate to remedy the effects of unlawful employment practices." Alexander v. GardnerDenver Co., 415 U.S. 36,44 (1974) (citing 42 U.S:C. § 2000-5(1) and (g».77
Even though it is the exclusive bargaining agent for TPD employees, the FOP may not prevent Plaintiffs from obtaining equitable reHefto rcdress acts of discrimination in violation of federal civil rights laws. In this regard, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has recognized a distinction between statutory rights "accorded by Congress" and collective bargaining rights, McAlester v. United Air Lines. Inc., 851 F.2d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir. 1988),
76 As explained above, this detennination would be made by a United States Magistrate Judge appointed by the Court. (See December 2002 Decree § 28.1.)
77 See id. at 47 ("Title vn does not speak expressly to the relationship between federal
COUlts and the grievance-arbitration machinery of collective-bargaining agreements. It does, however, vest federal courts with plenary powers to enforce the statutory requirements ....") "Arbitral procedures, while well suited to the resolution of contractual disputes, make arbitration
a comparatively inappropriate forum for the final resolution of rights created by Title VII." rd. at
57. 92

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 93 of 122
and has stated that causes of action under Title VII "emanate" from a source independent of a collective bargaining agreement," Adams v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 202 F.3d 281, 2000 WL 14399, *7 (10th Cir. Jan. 10, 2000) (unpublished decision). "Of necessity, the rights conferred [under Title VII] can fonn no part of the collectivewbargaining process since waiver of those rights would defeat the paramount congressional purpose behind Title VII." Alexander, 415 U.S. at 51. 78 For these reasons, the Court ovemdes the FOP's objections to Section 29.1 of the December 2002 Decree.
23. Section 35.1 - Modifications Section 35.1 of the proposed decree provides that "[n]o changes, modifications, or amendments ofthis Decree shall be effective unless they are ordered by the Court." (December 2002 Decree § 35.1.) The FOP objects to Section 35.1 of the December 2002 Decree all the stated basis that it "specifically eliminates the FOP's 'contractual and legal right to freely negotiate terms covered by the CBA or mandatory subjects of bargaining that are also found in the decree, and eliminates
the agreed upon dispute resolution procedure." (FOP's ObJections, Ex. A at 35.) As the basis
for its argument, the FOP contends that, under the CBA, the FOP and the City do not need the Court's approval to make final decisions after negotiations, and that any dispute over bargaining
n The Court rejects the FOP's retroactive seniority objection on the ground that it is purely speculative. Section 29.1 of the proposed decree specifically provides for equitable relief only if a federal magistrate judge determines that it is "justified by the evidence, law, and equities." (See December 2002 Decree § 29.1.) Moreover, the Court observes that, even if an
individual were awarded retroactive seniority under Title VII, such reHefwo~J1d not be achieved
in usurpation of the CBA's bona fide s(;':niority system. 93

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 94 of 122
is to be settled by an arbitrator under the guidGlines set forth in the CBA: (Id:) In response to this argument, Plaintiffs and the City maintain that the proposed decree is
not a collective bargaining agreement. (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 11.) "Only the Court should have the ability to approve changes to this resolution of a Title VII discrimination case; labor arbitrators have no such authority." (Id.)
The Court finds thal, because the December 2002 Decree is a settlement agreement
between Plaintiffs and the City that will be ajudieially approved consent decree resolving a Title
VII discrimination case, the proposed decree "places the power of the court behind the compromise struck by the parties." United States v. Colo., 937 F.2d at 509; see also Ruio v. Inmates of the Suffolk County JaiL 502 U.S. 367, 378 (1992) (describing consent decree as "a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally appHcable to other judgments and decrees"). Accordingly, the December 2002 De("Tee may not be changed, modified, or amended without this Court's approval. See id.; Williams, 720 F.2d at 920. Thus, the Court finds that the limitation contained in the December 2002 Decree providing that only the Court may effectuate any such revisions to the proposed decree is simply a restatement of existing law, which does not in any way impair the FOP's contractual or legal rights under the CBA or the FPAA. Accordingly, the Court ovemdes the FOP's objection to Section 35.1 of the proposed decree. B. The December 2002 Decree Does Not Substitute This COUli for the Arbitration Pro-.:ess
Provided By the FPAA and the CBA Section 21 of the December 2002 Decree establishes, as a committee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, the Dispute Avoidance and Resolution Committee (the "Committee"). The Committee is to be "composed of nine (9) members, three of whom
94

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 95 of 122
shall be selected by the Court from lists of citizClls proposed by the Parties, two members
selected by the Plaintiff class, two senior members of the Department selected by the City, and
two members selected by the FOP." (December 2002 Decree § 21,r" The primary objectives of
the Committee are as follows:
[toJcollect and review infonnation regarding compliance from the Independent
Auditor and the City and then provide the Parties an opportunity to discuss issues concerning the requirements of this Decree, assist in the resolution"of issues relevant to this Decree, and assist the Parties in avoiding future litigation over these matters.
(rd. § 22.1.) Section 22.1 further explains the duties of the Committee:
The Committee is not authorized to make policy and shall not issue orders or directions to any Party or any agent, representative or employee of the City. This Committee shall assist the Parties in making the changes and 'resolving issues related to the policies and practices required by this Decree. When called upon to do so, the Committee shall address disputes over compliance acting as an alternative dispute resolution tool pursuant to the local rules 6f1he United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
(!4YO
Sections 24 and 25 of the proposed decree address the adoption of the plans and policies
callcd for by the proposed decree and issues relating to compliance with the proposed decree.
QA §§ 24, 25.) Section 24.1 requires the City to present to the Committee drafts of any plans
and policies in advt1flce of their adoption ''in order to receive the views of the Committee and
79 The Court construes Section 21 ofthe December 2002 Decree such that it does not require the FOP to participate in the Committee. (See December 2'002 Decree §§ 1.5~ 21.)
80 Pursuant to Section 23.1.d ofthe proposed decree, "[t]he Committee shall have the authority to function as an adjunct settlement process under N.D. L.R: 16.2." (December 2002 Decree § 23.1 ,d.)
95

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 96 of 122
infonn the City of issues which might arise concerning such matters." M § 24.1.) Section 25.1
provides that the Committee shall he "kept infonned concerning the status of compliance and issues related thereto,'j and Section 25.2 provides a mechanism for Plaintiffs and the City to resolve any issues relating to compliance with the proposed decree through the Committee or otherwise, prior to the initiation of any eourt proceeding. (rd. § 25.)g]
First, the FOP objects to Sections 21 through 24 of the proposed decree and the fonnation ofthe Committee, arguing that the Committee itself "is contrary to one afthe principal reasons for the execution of the CBA in the first place: to bargain and negotiate the 'grievance procedures.'" (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 30 (citing CBA Preamble).) The FOP argue"
generally, that "[g]rievancc and arbitration systems are mandatory subjects ofbargaining.~' ilib.,
Ex. A at 30-31 (citing Bethlehem Steel Co., 136 N.LRE. 1500 (1962); United States Gypsum Co., 94 N.L.R.B. 112 (1951».) The FOP argue, that "[aJ party cannot circumvent grievance arbitration by direct court action to resolve disputes arising from the interpretation or enforcement ofa collective bargaining agreement." (FOP's Objections at 5.)
Specifically, the FOP contends that the creation of the Committee ''violates Article 7 of
~l Section 25.2 of the December 2002 Decree provides i11 its entirety as follows: In the event Plaintiffs contend the City has failed to fulfill any obligation under this Agreementj Plaintiffs shall, prior to initiating any court proceeding to remedy sueh contention, give written notice of the failure to the City and the Committee. The City shall have forty-five (45) days from receipt of such notice to resolve the issue through the Committee or otherwise. The Court may hear such a matter on an expedited basis, prior to review of the matter by the Committee, if the Plaintiffs establish that circumstances exist requiring such expedited review. (hl, § 25.2.)
96

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 97 of 122
the eBA which explicitly provides the only dispute resolution process for issues covered by the
CBA." (FOP's Objections, Ex. A at 31.)82 In this regard, the FOP argues:
[MJany (if not most) of the issues "concerning the Decree" are, in fact, inextricably bound up within the sole province of the CBA and are solely subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures of the CBA. They are not subjects for discussion or resolution by the Court, the parties, or a combination thereof-even with the exclusive bargaining representative of the members of the TPD as a minority member of such committee. Moreover, under the FPAA, 11 O.S. § 5IR 108, the FOP is entitled to have all impasse arbitration decisions rendered by a neutral arbitrator, rather than by a committee of interested parties, an auditor or, it is respectfully submitted, in the absence of an adjudicated finding ofliabHity, this Court. As such the Committee is contradictory to and interferes with the CBA's grievance and arbitration process.
QQJ The FOP also argues that Oklahoma law requires specific binding arbitration procedures to
resolve disputes and that the City cannot waive those requirements. {FOP's Objections at 5
("[TJhe FPAA mandates that every collective bargaining agreement with a municipality contain a
clause establishing arbitration to resolve 'any dispute which may arise involving the
interpretation or application of any of the provisions' of the collecti ve bargaining agreement.")
82 Section 7.1 of Article 7 of the CBA provides that "[tlhe Lodge or any member(s) of the bargaining unit may filc a grievance concerning the meaning, interpretation, application, or alleged violation of the terms and provisions of this Agreement ...." Section 7.9 of Article 7 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
With respect to the interpretation, enforcement or application ofthe provisions of the Agreement, the decisions, findings and recommendations ofthe arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this Agreement. The arbitrator's authority shall be limited to the interpretation and application of the tenns of this Agreement and/or any supplement thereto and shall not extend to those extraR contractual (I.e., Worker's Compensation, Unemployment Compensation issues, etc.) matters for which a forum and remedy is available pursuant to statute ....
(CBA Art. 7, § 7.9.)
97

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 98 of 122
(quoting OKLA. STAT. tit. II, § 51_111).)83 Second, the FOP objects to Section 25.2 of the proposed decree) arguing that "it explicitly
cuts out the FOP from negotiation and mandates the city negotiate with Plaintiff's [sic] to solve
the dispute prior to summoning the Committee or the Court for help." ilit., Ex. A at 31-32,) The
FOP repeats its arguments with respect to Sections 21 through 25, arguing that Section 25.2 "directly contradicts the dispute resolution process set out in Article 7 of the eBA" and "violates 11 O.S. § 51-111 which requires that every eBA have an arbitration clause for the resolution of all disputes involving the interpretation or application of any provision under a CBA." (Id., Ex. A at 32.)
Plaintiffs and the City maintain that the FOP mischaractcrizcs the proposed decree because the "Committee will not be deciding issues arising from the CBA; it will be deciding issues of compliance with the Decree, which is the remedy for the resolution of a Title VII class action." (PIs.' & City's Joint Resp. to FOP's Mot., Ex. A at 16.) Plaintiffs and the City further maintain that the December 2002 Decree does not enjoin the FOP from grieving and arbitrating any valid issues that may arise under the CHA. (Id.) Plaintiffs and th~ City also contend that the rights asserted by Plaintiffs in this case arise under Title VII and are, therefore, independent of
83 With respect to arbitration clauses, Section 51-111 of the FPAA provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Every such agreement shall contain a clause establishing arbitration procedures for the immediate and speedy resolution and detennination of any dispute which may arise involving the interpretation or application of any of the provisions of such agreement or the actions of any of the parties thereunder. OKLA. STAT. tit. II, § 51-III.
98

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 99 of 122
the eBA and fonn no part ofthe collective bargaining process. (ill
As discussed above, the question of whether the proposed agreement violates the contractual rights of others is a question oflaw for the Court. Hialeah~ 140 F.3d at 973. By
moving to intervene in this lawsuit and by presenting the Court vrith its objections to the
December 2002 Decree, the FOP has vested the Court with the power to cnter an order defining certain of its legal rights. Thus, upon careful consideration of the arguments ofthe parties and the applicable law, the Court finds that the implementation ofthe Committee as provided for in the proposed decree ,is not intended to, and will not, replace the compulsory arbitration process set forth in the eBA and the FPAA. Both the eBA and the FPAA specifically refer to the arbitration of issues under the eSA. (See eBA Art. 7, § 7.9 (dirct:ting that arbitrator's findings "[wlith respect to thc interpretation, entorcement or application ofthe provisions of this Agreement ... shall be final and binding on the parties to this Agreement.") (emphasis added); OKLA. STAT. tit. 11, § 51-111 (requiring establishment of "arbitration procedures for the ... resolution and determination ofany dispute which may arise involving the interpretation or application of any ofthe provisions of [the collcctive bargaining agreement] or the actions of any of the parties thereunder").) In contrast, Section 22.1 of the December 2002 Decree makes it clear that the Committce's responsibilitie::i relate solely to the proposed decree, and not to issues
arising under the CBA. M § 22.1 (requiring the Committee to "assist in the resolution of issues
relevant to this Decree") (emphasis added).)1>4
84 (See also id. ("The Committee shall have only the duties, responsibilities and allthority conferred by this Decree.").)
99

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 100 of 122
Moreover, contrary to the FOP's assertions and the language in Plaintiffs' and the City's brief: the Committee to be established under Sections 21 through 24 of the proposed decree will not be "deciding" issues at all. (See December 2002 Decree §§ 21-24.) Rather, Section 22.1 of the PfOposed decree, which sets forth the primary objectives of the Committee, provides that the Committee is not to "dec1de" anything. (See id. f22,1 (stating that the "Committee is not authorized to make policy and shall not issue orders or directions to any Party or any agent, representative or employee of the City,").) As described above, the Committee's powers arc limited to assisting the parties in reviewing infonnation and discussing issues relevant to the proposed decree in order to avoid future litigation. (Sec llL § 22.1.)
Thus, because the Court finds that the Committee created pursuant to the December 2002 Decree will not decide issues regarding the interpretation, enforcement, or application of the provisions of the CBA and because nothing prevents the FOP from grieving and arbitrating any valid issues that may arise under the CBA, the Court finds that the December 2002 Decree docs not substitute the Court for the mandatory arbitration process required by the CBA and the FPAA. Accordingly, the Court overrules the FOP's obje("iions to Sections 21 through 24 and Section 25.2 of the proposed decree. C, The December 2002 Decree Does Not Violate Principles ofFederalism'<
The FOP's final argument in opposition to the proposed decree is that the Court should reject the December 2002 Decree because it violates principles of federalism. The FOP argues that the proposed decree impeI1Ilissibly circumvents state and local procedures enacted to protect the rights of police officers, and impennissibly futerferes with the exercise of state enforcement
100

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 101 of 122
mechanisms that have been bargained for by the FOP and its m~bers.S5 As further support for its argument that the proposed decree violates the principles of federalism, the FOP notes the lack of consent to the proposed decree from the following state entities: the future mayor of Tulsa, the PERB, the Tulsa Civil Service Commission, the FOP, and Tulsa police officers who object to thc proposed decree. (See FOP's Objections at 24 and Reply at 19-20.)
In Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.s. 362 (1976), the Supreme Court held that federalism
principles apply where injunctive relief is sought «against those in charge of an executive branch
of an agency of state or local governments." Id. at 380. The Supreme Court instructed federal courts to be mindful of the principles of federalism in granting equitable relief against state actors;
Where, as here, the exercise of authority by state officials is attacked, federal courts must be constantly mindful of the 'special delicacy of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its O'WD law.' Id. at 378 (quoting Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117, 120 (1951)). At issue in Rhzo were the federalism concerns implicated by a district court's fashioning of an equitable remedy after a finding of liability against state officials. Since Rizzo, courts have also addressed the federalism concerns implicated by a district court's entry and/or enforcement
~5 The enforcement mechanisms to which the FOP refers are the arbitration processes set forth in the CBA and established by the FPAA. The FOP also argues '~ar the proposed decree violates Article 10, § 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which states that no city shall become indebted to an amount exceeding the income and revenue for that year without the assent of three-fifths ofthe voters. Okla. Const., Art. 10, § 26.
101

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 102 of 122
of a consent decree entered into by state officials pursuant to a settlement of c1aims.86 Of the courts that have addressed federalism concerns in the context of a consent decree entered into voluntarily by state officials, some have concluded that the State's consent to the proposed decree obviates or minimizC8 any federalism concerns, while others have held that the principles of federalism must be considered, despite the state actor's consent to thc proposed decree.
Compare, M,., Labor/Cmty. Strategy etr. v. Los Angeles Cty. Met. Transp. Auth., 263 F.3d
(041,1050 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that local agency's consent to remedial scheme in decree relieves many concerns offederalism); Allen v. Ala. State Bd. ofEduc., 816 F.2d 575, 577 (I Ith Cif. 1987) ('"It is, of course, right for United States Courts to be concerned about the vitality of our federal system; but we disagree that enforcing a settlement made by a state board undercuts important principles offederalism ...."); Duran v. Carruthers, 678 F. Supp. 839,847 (D.N.M. 1988) ("It would be a bizarre perversion of the principle of comity to suggest that a federal court is required, in order to preserve state autonomy, to override the decisions of state officials and substitute its own judgments.") with Kasper v. Bd. "fElection Corom'rs, 814 F.2d 332, 340 (7th Cir. 1987) ("The Board's willingness to transfer its responsibilities to the federal' court does not oblige the court to accept it."); Leb. Y. Kavanaugh, 807 F.2d 1243, 1253 (5th Cir. 1987)
86 Although a federal court's discretion to enter or enforce a consent decree is not identical to a federal court's discretion to fashion an equitable remedy after a finding ofliability, the two discretionary acts implicate similar federalism concerns. Sec Ragsdale v. Turnock, 941 F.2d 502, 515 (7th Cir. 1991) ("In entering a consent decree, a district court employs a remedy of the flexibility that has typically characterized equitable relief"); Note, Alan Effron, Federalism and Federal Consent Decrees Against State Governmental Entities, 8$ Colum. L. Rev. 1796, 1800-01 (1988) (stating that, while not strictly identical to equitable discretion, discretion to enter or enforce a consent decree should be considered equitable at least where proposed decree consists of equitable measures) (hereinafter Federalism and Federal Consent Decrees).
102

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 103 of 122
(vacating consent decree that created "federal court remedy unfounded in federal law [that] intrudes into the governance of matters otherwise presided over by the states."); Georgevich v. Strauss, 772 F.2d 1078, 1085 (3d Cir. 1985) (stating thaI the district court's "legitimate concerns about federal-state relations" are good reasons not to approve a consent decree). See generally Federalism and Federal Consent Decrees at 1801-02; Note, Jeremy Wright, Fcderal Authority to Enforce Consent Decrees Against State Officials, 6 Tex. F. on C.L. & C.R. 401 (2002) (hereinafter Federal Authority to Enforce Consent Decrees).
As described in previous sections of this order, the City and its elected officials, by and through Mayor LaFortune, have unequivocally consented to the proposed decree, have urged that it is in the best interest of the City, and have stated that it is a satisfactory conclusion to nine years of divisive litigation. (1121103 Tr. at 24:8-27: 12.) Thus, to the extent that federalism concerns are minimized or obviated by the consent of the state actor, as held by some courts, the FOP's federalism argument is not persuasive in this case because City officials not only agreed to the proposed decree but were also actively involved in fashioning the decree. Further, the Court rejects the FOP's argument that the lack of consent from some future mayor of Tulsa disrupts the balance of federalism. Tfthis were this the case, a state or municipality would never be able to enter a consent decree containing enforcement schemes with life spans exceeding the eurrent official's term of office.87
~7 The FOP also urges that the lack of "consent" from various local and state agencies, such as the PERB and the Tulsa Civil Service Commission, mandates rejection of the proposed decree. Based on the Court's finding that the proposed decree does not attempt to modity or supplant any existing state schemes, such as the FPAA, the Court finds that this argument is without merit.
103

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 104 of 122
Assuming, without deciding, that consent to a settlement by a state actor does not obviate
the need for the federalism inquiry, the Court will address the FOP's argument that tht! proposed
decree sets up a remedial scheme that impennissibly intrudes upon the autonomy of stale and local govemrnent.88 In its objections to the proposed decree, the FOP attempts to align the facts
in this case with the facts in cases in which consent decrees have been rejected, or not enforced,
on grounds that the proposed decree Of enforcement ofthe proposed decree violated federal-state
relations. The Court will address each of these cases in turn.
In Kasper, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a district court's refusal to
enter a consent decree, entered into by the Republican Party of Chicago and the Board of
Election Commissioners of Chicago, that would have changed thc entire system of canvassing voters in the Chicago area. Kasper, 814 F.2d at 338~39. In upholding the'rejection of the
decree, the Court of Appeals identified several considerations that supported the district court's
88 In Kasper, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit offered the follomng explanation for its conclusion that the consent of a state entity does not obviate the need for the court to conduct a federalism inquiry:
Finding the authority to impose obligations is not the only objective of the federal court, though. A judge has obligations to other litigants ... and to members of the public whose interest may not be represented by thc litigants. A district judge need not lend the aid of the federal court to whatever strikes two parties' fancy ... ' Before entering a consent decree, the judge must satisfy himself that the decree is consistent with the Constitution and laws, does not undcnnine the rightful interests of third parties, and is an appropriate commitment of the court's limited resources.
Kasper, 814 Fold at 338; see also Federalism and Federal Consent Decrees (arguing that "consent theory" is flawed because consent of the parties cannot broaden the scope of a federal court's
power). In consideration oftllis authority, the Court ","m address the FOP's federalism
arguments, despite the City's consent to the proposed decree. 104

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 105 of 122
refusal to enter the decree: (1) the court did not have time to evaluate the complaint or the consent dC("'Tee with care; (2) the complaint, and concessions by the board, concerned only past canvasses; (3) the proposed decree potentially threatened the interests of an intervening party who asserted that the new system would remove certain voters from voting rolls; (4) the decree appointed "United States District Court Observers" to oversee the elections, borrowing the name and prestige of the district court; (5) the decree had potential to "propel the court into the minutiae of the Board's functions. a whopping reallocation of authority from state to federal government, from politic.a1 to judicial actors;" (6) the complaint did not make a substantial showing of a violation offederallaw and wasted federal judicial resources; (7) the decree excused the board from complying with Tllinois law and actually encouraged violations of Illinois law; and (8) the decree altered the state statutory scheme, and could be viewed as an attempt by a state agency to "liberate" itself fron1 state statutes. Id. at 339-42.
In Georgcvich, the district court revoked its initial approval of a consent decree entered into by a plaintiff class of inmates serving sentences in state institutions and a defendant class of Pennsylvania Common Pleas judges. Plaintiffs' claim was an equal protection challenge to the parole procedures governing state prisoners in Permsylvania, whieh p1aintifis alleged gave county prisoners more favorable treatment than similarly situated state prisoners. The parties initially agreed to a consent decree providing for corrective procedures. However, objections were filed to the decree on grounds that federal judicial oversight of 300 state COlUt judges was unnecessary and disrupted the principles offedcralism. The district court did not enter the decree, and granted summary judgment to defendants. The court of appeals remanded the case
105

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 106 of 122
and ordered that the district court abstain from resolution of the state law issue until the state judiciary had an opportunity to attempt to resolve the claim, holding that abstention was proper because it was "almost certain that resolution of the state law issue [would] obviate the need for a federal court to decide a constitutional issue." Georgevich, 772 F.2d at 1089.
In Lelsz, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a district court order enforcing a consent decree entered into by a plaintiff class consisting of 2400 residents of schaab for the mentally retarded in Texas and the Texas Department ofHealth and Mental Health. The district court had attempted to enforce thc consent decree by ordering the state, against its consent, to create oonununity facilities for 279 class members. Lelsz, 807 F.2d at 1245. The court reasoned that, even under Local No. 93, 478 U.S. 501, which allows 'a federal court to enter a consent decree that provides broader relief than the court could have awarded after trial, the district court did not have power to impose this remedy because the right to a "least restrictive alternative" environment, which created the need for the remedy of additional facilities, arose solely from Texas law. Id. at 1253. The CQurt of appeals stated that if"a federal court may take almost any action against a state to endorse a consent decree so long as it is consistent with the spirit of the applicable constitutional law and the decree itself, there is no limitation on the scope of the court's power." Id.89
89 All other circuits that have considered issues arising with the enforcement of a consent decree have rejected the court's reasoning in Lelsz. See Komyatti v. Bavh, 96 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Michigan, 62 F.3d 1418, slip op. (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 1995); Kozlowski v. CQughlin, 871 F.2d 241 (2d Cir. 1989). Although the issue presentedin this case is entry of the proposed decree, rather than enforcement of the proposed decree, the federalism analysis is similar in both instances.
106

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 107 of 122
These three cases, as well as all other cases cited by the FOP in support of its federalism argument,9(1 are distinguishable from the instant case. First, the second amended complaint in this case alleges violations of only federal civil rights laws, thereby significantly diminishing the federalism concerns articulated in cases cited by the FOP. The causes of action in this lawsuit arise under Title VII and other federal civil rights laws, which expressly subject local governments to suit. Although the absence of a state law cause of action does not entirely assuage federalism concerns, it puts the instant case in a ditferent category from those cited by the FOP, in which there were state law issues that presented special concerns. Because the claims in this case arise solely under federal law, this dispute is not OIle that "belongs" in state court, ~ Kasper, 814 F.2d at 342 (rejecting decree, in part, because it appeared the parties may have "delivered the complaint in this case to the wrong court"), and, thus, there is no need to give a state court the "first crack" at the entry of any consent decree, ~ Federalism and Federal Consent Decrees at 1814 (assertiI1g that whether an appropriate state court could enter a similar consent decree is a factor to consider in the federalism analysis).91 The Court, therefore, finds that the fact that there are no causes of action arising under state law militates against federalism
9!l The Court has addressed the cases that best support the FOP's position. Other cases cited by the FOP are less persuasive. For example, in Annco, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 280 F.3d 669 (6th Cir. 2002). the appellate court held that the district court had entered a consent decree in violation of abstention principles where the federal cOnsent decree "addresse[dJ substantially the same issues that [were] addressed in [a] state court injunction." Id. at 682. Significantly, in the instant case, there is no pending state court proceeding requiring abstention by this Court.
91 In Kasper, the district court found that ¢e complaint did not even allege a violation of federal law. Kasper, 814 F.2d at 342.
107

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 108 of 122
concerns in this case. Seoond, the Court finds that this decree does not significantly or unnecessarily intrude on
the sovereignty ofthe state goverrunent. The decree does not infringe upon any complex state administrative scheme or significant state function, such as a city's election process, as in Kasper, or an entire state judiciary, as in Georgevich. Indeed~ for the reasons explained in detail in prcvious sections of this order, the Court finds that the proposed decree does not infringe upon the state law procedures set forth in the FPAA and administered by the PERB. See supra Section Ill.B. Accordingly, the Court finds that the proposed de("'l"ee is narrowly tailored to address the alleged federal violations giving rise to this lawsuit, without impinging upon state sovereignty. The FOP's arguments regarding the decree's alleged "intrusions" into state law simply do not rise to the level of such a significant disruption of federal-state relations as to warrant rejection of a settlement of the claims in this lawsuit. See. e.g., Kasper, 814 F.2d at 340 (rejecting decree, in part, because it potentially involved a "whopping reallocation of authority from state to federal government, from political to judicial actors.") (emphasis added).
As to the FOP's objections based on the proposed decree's potential conflicts with Article 10, § 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which prohibits the City from becoming indebted in an
amount exceeding the income and revenue for that year without the assent of three-fifths of the voters, the Court finds that an analysis of the terms of the proposed decree minimizes any federalism concerns. The expenses to be incurred for implementation of the December 2002 Decree are heavily front-loaded, and have already been included in the City's budget for this fiscal year. (PIs.' & City's Joint Rcsp. to Objections at 28.) In add1tioD, within three years, the
108

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 109 of 122
proposed decree contemplates that the City wi1I be in full compliance. Third, the Court finds that there is nothing in the proposed decree that suggests Mayor
Lafortune or other City officials have entered the consent decree in an attempt to circumvent any
local or state laws. In Dunn v. Carey. 808 F.2d 555 (7th Crr. 1986), the court cautioned that
"courts must be alert to the possibility that the consent decree is a ploy in some other struggle." Id. at 560; sec also Kasper, 814 F.2d at 340 (district judges should be on lookout for attempts to use consent decrees to make end runs around the legislature); Federalism and Federal Consent Decrees at 1813 (stating that courts sholdd be hesitant to enter a consent decree when a "strong possibility exists that the state entity would thereby evade traditional routes of political accountability"). The FOP argues that "the Mayor is trying to circumvent the above state and local procedures for political benefit"; however) the FOP cites, and the Court finds, nothing in this record to suggest that Mayor Lafortune, in settling this lawsuit, is motivated by anything other than the best interest of the City ofTulsa.92 For these reasons, the Court finds that the December 2002 Decree does not violate principles of federalism. D. The FOP's Objections to the December 2002 Decree Do Not Operate As a Bar To Its
Approval For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the December 2002 Decree does not
92 The Court observes that the nine-year time span that has elapsed since the filing oftrus lawsuit, as well as the hard-fought nature· of thIs litigation, also minhnizes federalism concerns. In this late stage of the litigation, it is clear that the Plaintifl'S and thc City have contemplated the scope and nature of relief that would bc available after a trial on the merits in reaching settlement of the claims. Accordingly, the concerns raised in other cascs regarding the entry into a consent decree where such entry is either premature or"\Yill ultimately be a waste ofjudicial resources, are not present in this casco
109

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 110 of 122
require the FOP to act or to rcfrain from acting. Specifically, the Court finds that the December
2002 Decree does not erode or infringe upon the union's contractual or legal rights under either
the CBA or the FPAA. The Court further finds that the December 2002 Decree does not impose
any legal duties or obligations on the FOP. Only the parties to the December 2002 Decree can be
held in contempt of court for fhllure to comply with its terms.
As the Court stated in its December 13, 2002 order rejecting the FOP's claim that it had a
unilateral right to reject the proposed decree, the Court finds that the FOP has asserted no claims,
or causes of action in this litigation. Although the FOP contends in its objections to the proposed
decree that it has not filed counterclaims or cross-claims because "the Court has made it clear
that no party may add claims," the Court finds the FOP's current claim in this regard contrary to the record and in bad faith. (See FOP's Objections at 3.) At no time before filing its objections
to the December 2002 Decree did the FOP move to amend the pleadings or even indicate a desire
to assert claims or causes of action against either Plaintiffs or the City.93 The Court notes that it
93 To the contrary, when urging the Court to grant its_ motionJo intervene, the FOP
expressly represented that "the FOP is ready for trial when the Court 'schedules the trial .... ,.
(Reply of Lodge #93 of the Frat.emal Order of Police to Mem. of PIs. in Opp. to Mot. to Intervene at 6.) In this regard, Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, in an order dated September 24, 2002, specifically found that the FOP had made misrepresentations regarding its ability to proceed to trial, without delay, if it were granted intervention. (9/24/02 Order of Magistrate Judge McCarthy at 4 (admonishing FOP for engaging in "sharp practices").) With respect to these misrepresentations, Magistrate Judge McCarthy stated:
Any representations by the FOP contrary to these findings are simply untrue and intcrtere with the ability of this Magistrate Judge and the parties to develop a fair and expeditious schedule in this matter. SimpJy stated, when a party makes express representations to the Court, and the "Court relies on such representations, that party cannot, at a later date, lmtruthfully claim that it never made such representations or that prejudice will result from the Court acting in accordance
110

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 111 of 122
was Plaintiffs who, objecting to the FOP's delayed request for intervention, suggested that
parties and causes of action may have to be added. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that intervention should be denied because it would prejudice their interests by requiring that
Plaintiffs amend the complaint to add causes of action against the FOP for its failure to represent African-American pOlice officers who have brought forth valid discrimination grievances. (PIs.' Add'} Resp. to Mot. to Intervene by Lodge #93 of the Fraternal Order of Police at 5_6.)94 In
response to Plaintiffs' assertion ofprejudice, the Court, in its September 10, 2002 order granting intervention, stated the following:
The Court finds that the intervention of the FOP '\'ViII not necessitate further plcadings or additional discovery, as suggested by the Plaintiffs. To the contrary, the FOP is being granted intervenor status in this case as it is' currently plead. As a result, the FOP will be a full participant and party to the proceedings, and it will bc bound95 by any adjudication resulting from the Plaintiffs claims for equitable
,vith such representations. To do so undermines the integrity of the process. (Id.; see also 11119102 Order (overruling FOP's objections to Magistrate Judge McCarthy's ord"r).)
94- Specifically, the Plaintiffs' hriefin opposition to the FOP's motion to intervene stated: If the FOP becomes a party, Plaintiffs plan on making specific allegations against the FOP, so that it can defend its own wrongdoings, not just serve as second team for thc City. For years, the FOP has turned a blind eye to issues of racial discrimination within the Tulsa Police Department, refusing to represcnt blac~ officers who have brOUght forth valid discrimination grievances. This, of course,
is not only a violation ofthe Collective Bargai"ning Agreen1e~t (CBA), but also a
violation of federal non-discrimination laws.
95 The Court's statement, in its September 10, 2002 order, that the FOP would be "bound" by any adjudication resulting from Plaintiffs' claims in this case, refers to the basic
111

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 112 of 122
relief stated in its second amended complaint. At this time, the Court finds no
basis in the record to support a motion to further amend the pleadings.
(9/10/02 Order at 14 n.8 (footnote not in original).) Therefore, the Court finds that the record
does not support the FOP's assertion that its failure to assert claims or causes of action against
the parties in this case was due to a limitation imposed by the Court.96
The Court further finds that the FOP has taken full advantage of the opportunity to
participate in the fairness hearings on the December 2002 Decree. In this regard, the FOP filed
sixty-four pages of objections to the December 1001 Decrec, (fOP'S"Obj"ections; FOP's
Objections, Ex. A.), and, at the fairness hearings, the FOP called witnesses and introduced
evidence in support ofthose objections. See Local No. 93,478 U.S. at 528-29; see also Jones,
741 F.2d at 325 ("Appellant was afforded the full panoply of procedural due process when he
principle that "ifpersons are improperly prevented from intervening as parties to the consent decree litigation, they should not be bound by its results." Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983,998 n.19 (5th Cir. 1996). See alsoSanguine, 798 F.2d at 329. Therefore, although the
Court finds that this decision mil preclude the FOP from later arguing that the entry ofthe
proposed consent dccree violates its rights under the CBA and Oklahoma law, the Court nevertheless finds, for the reasons articulated above, that the December 2002 Decree does not impose any legal duties or obligations on the FOP or bind the FOP to'do or not to do anything.
96 Moreover, the Court notes that, in its objections, the FOP claims that it "has both
defenses and affinnative claims.» (!4J Thc FOr explains that its defenses to the proposed
decree include its assertion that there has been "no finding of liability to justify imposing
obligations on the FOP or its members." Qd. at 3 n.5.) The FOP explains that its "affinnative
claims" include its contention that the proposed decree is a "violation of the CBA and federal, state and local law." (1i. at 3 n.6. (stating only that FOP has "affirmative claims" "[s]uch as violation of the CBA and federal, state and loeallaw.") Therefore, even if the Court's September 10, 2002 order could have been construed as a prohibition on the filing of counterclaims or c(ossclaims by the FOP, the Court., nevertheless, finds that the FOP's «affirmative claims'" are nothing more than its objections to the approval of the December 2002 Decree and are not separate causes of action asserted against either Plaintiffs or the City.
112

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 113 of 122
received adequatc notice of the settlement hearing and had the significant opporttmity to be heard by submitting an extensive memorandum to the court prior to the hearing detailing his objection to the settlement."); Rutter & Wilbanks COIl'., 314 F.3d at !187 ("The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a mean1ngful time in a meaningful manner.") (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Therefore, because the December 2002 Decree does not bind the FOP to act or to refrain from acting, does not impose any legal duties upon the FOP, and does not purport to resolve any claims asserted by the FOP, the Court finds that the facts of the 'instant case are virtually indistinguishable from the faCts in Local No. 93 where the Supreme Court upheld the district court's approval ofa consent de("Tee over the objections of the non-consenting union. See Local No. 93, 478 U.S. at 528,29. The Courtfurthei finds that, because the FOP has had the opportunity to present its objections to the proposed decree and because the Court has throughly considered those objections, the FOP has been aiTorded "all the process that [it] was due." See id. Thus, the Court finds that it may approve the December 2002 Decree over the FOP's objections.
IV Having found that the proposed decree satisfies the Gottlieb factors and that it does not violate the FOP's contractual or legal rights, the Court must next detennine whether the proposed decree violates state or fedcral1aw. United States v. Colo., 937 F.2d at 509 ("[T]he district court must ensure that the agreement is not illegal, a product of collusion, or against the public interest."); Hialeah, 140 FJd at 973 ("The district court has the responsibility to insure that a
113

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 114 of 122
consent decree is not unlawful, unreasonable, or inequitable.") (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The Court finds that the December 2002 Decree, for many of the reasons explained in the previous sections of this order, does not violate state or federal law and is not illegal. The Court finds that the December 2002 Decree is a prudent and balanced compromise between the parties and that its tenus are appropriately related to the allegations contained in the second amended complaint. See Local No. 93, 478 U.S. at 525 (stating that consent decree mu~t "come within the general scope ofthe case made by the pleadings, and must further the objectives ofthe law upon which the complaint was based") (internal quotations and citations omitted). The December 2002 Decree, unlike the challenged decree in Local No. 93, which contained an affirmative action and quota program to remedy the allegations of past discrimination, sets forth certain raceneutral policies and practices to be adopted by the City as a response to the claims of pa<;t discrimination in this case. Thus, the Court finds that, in addition to being lawful, the Dec·ember 2002 Decree is also reasonable and equitable.
v
Finally, the Court must determine whether the adoption and approval of the proposed decree furthers the interests of the City and the community at large. See 7B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1979.1 (2d cd. 1986 & 2001 Supp.) (stating that district courts must ensure that the settlement of a class action is "in the best interests of those who will be affected by it."); United States v. Colo.• 937 F.2d 505, 509 (10th Cir. 1991) (requiring district courts to ensure that settlement is not "against the pubHc intcresf').
114

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 115 of 122
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the December 2002 Decree is in the
best interest of the Tulsa conununity. The record reflects that, during the nine years that this case
has been litigated, it has bred divisiveness in the community. At the fairness hearings regarding
the April 2002 decree, former Mayor Savage testified about the divis1veness of the lawsuit and
about the increasing divisiveness created by its continued litigation:
[The case at bar] was a very divisive lawsuit and over the period of time, six, seven, eight years that it has becn underway has grown increasingly divisive. My experience with litigation involving the City ofTulsa is that if a settlement can occur then it is beneficial for all of the parties, and certainly in a case where there are heightened emotions where there is - there are disputes within a working environment, to settle those disputes by virtue ofmurual agreement is preferable, in my view, to litigation.
(6113/02 Tr. at 18:15R 25.) Simiarly, Mayor Lafortune, noting the negative atmosphere created
within the TPD during the fairness hearings themselves, testified tha~ he believes the proposed
decree is a "golden opportunity" to resolve this litigation and one that allows the City and the
TPD to move forward. (J/21103 Tr. at 26: 12-27:5.)97
97 Mayor Lafortune articulated five distinct reasons that weigh in favor of support for the Decembcr 2002 Decrcc. First, Mayor Lafortune testified that he believes the proposed decree is cost ellective. (See, e.g., 1/21103 Tr. at 2:6.) Second, he testified that he believes the proposed decree is fair to all of the parties. (Td. at 25:7~ 15.) In this regard, Mayor LaFortune, noted "thirty-two substantive revisions" from'the April 2002 Decree, explaining that he worked very hard to incorporate the FOP's objections articulated at thc June and July 2002 fairness hearings
into the December 2002 Decree. (MJ Third, the mayor testified that he believes the decree is
progressive because it "contain[s] a number of very positive policies and on the cutting edge type of policies such as the CALEA Accreditation [and] the establishment of a career development section in the department." (!4, at 25:16-21.) Fourth, Mayor LaFortune testified that he believes the proposed decree should be approved because Chief Been believes he can administer it. (Id. at 25:22-26: 11.) Finally, the mayor testified, as noted above, that he believes that the proposed decree is a "golden opportunity to resolve this almost decade old piece of litigation" and allow the City and TPD to move forward. (!4, at 26:12-27:12.)
liS

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 116 of 122
The Court w1tnessed the divisiveness created by this litigation during the fairness
hearings conducted by the Court in June and July 2002. While the parties, in the well ofthe
courtroom, contested the existence ofracial divisiveness, mtnesses noted that the gallery was
distinctly divided along racial lines, with African-American officers sitting on one side and white
officers on the other. (See 7/15/02 Tr. at 257:2~ 7.)')s
The Court finds that subsequent litigation and a tria11ikcly would exacerbate this
division. 99 See. c.g., Williams, 720 F.2d at 923 ("Consent decrees minimize thc delay, expense,
The Court has the highest respect for Mayor LaFortLme and the record makes clear his commitment to the improvement of the City and his desire to constructively address the issues raised by the instant lawsuit. The Court, therefore, gives great weight to Mayor Lafortune's analysis, reasoning, and conclusion that the proposed decree is in the best interest of the Tulsa community.
98 The racial divide described by the witnesses in sworn testimony was also reported in the Tulsa World:
As they had done during the June 13 and June 20 hearings concerning the proposed settlement ofa racial discrimination suit against the city, black officers on Monday had gravitated to the.rows in the gallery behind the plaintiffs' table while white officers sat across the aisle behind a table where Fraternal Order of Police attorneys were stationed.
David Harper, Racial Division Is Cited, TULSA WORLD, July 16, 2002, at AI.
99 For example. in their second amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that "AfricanAmerican officers are subjected to harsher discipline and arc more likely to be discharged than similarly situated white officers." (Second Am. CompI. at 9.) In order to prove this claim, Plaintiffs would have been required to adduce evidence at trial that white officers who engaged in arguably the same ''\.vrongful conduct" as African-American officers were not disciplined or tenninated, while Afiican~American officers were. In other word~, th,~ testimony at trial would have largely consisted of comparisons of the bases for discipline of similarly-situated African~ American and Caucasian officers. This speCific testimony regarding individual officers' condl~ct would not only have been negative in naturc but also highly personal. and such testimony would have undoubtedly generated adverse publicity for the City, the TPD, and ofti'cers of all races, in
116

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 117 of 122
,.",
psychological bitterness, and adverse publicity which frequently accompanies adjudicated guilt''), Indeed, during the recent fairness hearings, Mayor LaForttme testified that he believes a trial on the merits would be "vel)' destructive" to both the TPD and the City. (1121103 Tr. at 26:16 - 27:5.)
In addition to adversely affecting the atmosphere of the community, continued prosecution of this case would also be financially destructive to the City. As described above, the taxpayers of the City of Tulsa have borne at least $2 million of fees and expenses incurred in defending this action. If the December 2002 Decree is rejected~ the taxpayers will be called upon again to bear the costs of further litigation. To this end, Mayor LaFortune testified at the fairness hearings that, because the City is "struggling economically," a trial on the merits would be particularly damaging. (1121/03 Tr. at 26: 16 - 27:5.) He stated that he can "only imagine" what the amount ofattomey fees incurred by the City would be if this case had proceeded to a trial on the merits. (1121/03 Tr. at 51:6-14.)
For essentially the same reasons that the proposed decree is in the best interest of the City and the community in this case, it is settled law thai voluntary settlement is the preferred method of eliminating employment discrimination. EEOC v. Courtwright, 611 F.2d 79;, 799 (10th Cir.
1979); Hialeah, 140 F.3d at 974. "The Supreme Court has emphasized on several recent
occasions that Congress has expressed a 'strOI1g preference' for encouraging voluntary settlements of Title VII actions." W1I1iams, 720 F.2d at 923 (cataloguing opinions regarding settlement as preferred method ofresolution).
particular those individual officers whose conduct was the subject of testimony. 117

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 118 of 122
Against this backdrop of a preference for voluntary settlement of discrimination actions, the Court has reviewed and considered the various objections and testimony ofindividual nonc1ass members both in opposition to~ and in support of, the proposed decree in detcmrining whether the December 2002 Decree is in the best interest of the City of Tulsa and the community at large.
first, the Court has considered the testimony of three prominent and respected leaders of the Tulsa community who testified at the fairness hearings before the Court in support of the proposed decree. Reverend Weldon Lewis Tisdale, pastor of Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, testified that the proposed decree "is a powerful instrument [and] vehicle to begin the reconciliation, the healing of deep~seated and open wounds that have been in tIus city for more than 80 years." (1/22103 Tr. at 255:3-256:13.) Reverend Milford J.Cartcr, pastor of Sanctuary bvangelistic Church,100 testified that the lawsuit has contributed to the City's polarization along racial lines. (Id. at 263:6-20.) Reverend Carter further testified that he believes the proposed decree will "serve as a catalyst to effect the change that [he] believers] most everybody in the city is ready for." (Id.) Finally, Nancy Day, the Executive Director ofthe Tulsa Region of the
100 Reverend Carter testified that he is also involved with United Pastors for Community and Apostolic City Transfonnation. (1122103 Tr. at 261: 14-263:2.) Reverend Carter testified that "United Pastors for Community is [a] group of some 30 plus pastors in and around the North Tulsa community who have rallied together to deal with issues that have separated our community and to stand for justice regarding the changes that we see ;necessary in the community." (Id. at 261: 14-19.f He testifi~ that Apostolic City Transfonnation is a group of
four churches that work t()wards accomplishing points of unity in the City. C1lh at 262:18-263:2.)
118

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 119 of 122

National Conference for Community and Justice (the "NCCJ,,)101 who has been involved during the last two years in Tulsa's racial reconciliation project, testified that the board ofNCC] believes a swift and equitable resolution to the case would help the community to move forward. 102
Second, the Court has reviewed and given serious consideration to the individual objections to the proposed decree filed by 214 FOP members Dnd three citizens on January 16, 2003.103 Although nonclass members generally have no standing to object to the settlement of a class action, Howard B. Newberg and Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 11.55, at 11-134

101 Ms. Day testified thDt the "NCe] is a national human relations organization founded
in 1927 as the National Conference of Christians and Jews, [which is] now the National
Conference for Community and Justice." (1/27/03 Tr. at 326:17-321:1.) Ms. Day explained that
the Nee] works "to fight bias, bigotry and racism in America, [and] to promote understanding
and respect among all peoples of all races, religions, and cultures." Chl,.)

102 The FOP attempts to make much out of the tact that several witnesses testifying on

behalfofPlaintiffs and the City had not read the objections filed by the individual officers. The

Court, however, finds the FOP's argument unpersuasive. In this regard, the Court notes that the

FOP's President, Robert Jackson, testified that he himse1fhad read only one of the 214

individual objections. (1128/03 Tr. at 643:3-4.)

...

w., Plaintiffs and the City argue that less weight should be afforded to the individual officers' objections because many of those objections were either in s,ubstantially similar [ann or identical to objections found in a list developed by the FOP and distributed to its membership entitled "Reasons for Objecting to the Proposed Settlement and Consent D,ecree." In this regard, Plaintiffs elicited testimony at the fairness 'hearings from FOP President Robert Jackson that this
list was distributed to the FOP memberShip in order to "[give] them ideas as t~ help them as to
what to say, if they needed it." (1128/03 Tr. at 704:13-16.)

The Court finds that the fact that many ofthe individual officers' objections were prepared pursuant to a fonn distributed to them by the FOP does not diminish the fact that these individuals took the time to communicate their views on this issue directly to the Court. Accordingly, the Court finds that, contrary to the suggestion ofPlaintiffs and the City, this should not affe<.-i the serious consideration afforded these individual officers' objections.
119

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 120 of 122
(3d ed. 1992) (citing Gould v. Alleeo, Inc., 883 F.2d 281, 284 (4th Cir. 1989»), the Court
recognizes these officers' objections as evidence of their sincerity and concern regarding the
proposed decree and, therefore, has carefully reviewed each objection in considering whether the
proposed decree is in the public's interest. J04
Upon review of the individual union members' objections, the Court finds that the
overwhelming majority of the concerns expressed do not substantively differ from the objections
presented in this case by the union itself Therefore, to the extent that the objections raised by
individual officers are the same as those identified by the lmian, which deal with contractual and legal rights under the CBA and the FPAA, the Court finds that those objections have been
addressed in great detail throughout this order and that a separate analysis of each ofthese issues
need not be rehearsed here. lOS
Thc Court has given exhaustive consideration to the good faith objections filed by the.
as 104 The FOP, referring to the Court's comments at the hearing on January 21, 2003 that it
would consider each written objection IfIt were a "sworn goodwfaith statement," argues that
more African-American officers testified against the proposed decree than in favor of it. The
Court, however, rejects the FOP's argumcnt in this regard. It is settled law that the number of witnesses is not controlling. Furthermore, the Court finds it significant that only two members of the Plaintiffclass objected to the proposed decree.
105 The predominant objection by the union members is that the allegations of discrimination in the second amended complaint are untrue. (See, e.g., D. Liedorffs Obj. to Proposed Settlement and Consent Decree; D. Brockman's Obj. to Proposed Settlement and Consent Dc"Tee; R. Mann's Obj. to Proposed Settlement and Consent Decree.) However, as discussed above, in assess1ng the adequacy ofthe settlement, district courts need not decide the merits of the case or perfonn their own independent investigation. See Gottlieb, 11 F.3d at 1015. Accordingly, because a decision on the merits of this cac:;e is inappropriate in detennining whether the December 2002 is in the public's best interest~ the Court finds that this objection is not a sufficient basis upon which to find that the proposed decree is not in the best interest of the City and the community at large.
120

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 121 of 122
FOP and its members. To the extent that those objections are not based on contractual rights under the CBA or legal rights under state law, however, they must be weighed against the clear gains and opportunities presented by thc proposed decree.106 For all of these reasons, the Court finds that the record supports the conclusion that approval of the December 2002 Decree is in thc best interest of the City of Tulsa and the community at targe.
VI Based upon a careful review of the terms of the December 2002 De("Tee, the objections filed thereto, and the factors to be considered by the Court in determining the fairness of such a settlement, the Court finds that the December 2002 Decree is wise, fair, and fully supported by law. The City and Plaintiffs have engaged in divisive litigation for over nine years. During this period, both individual law enforcement officers and City officials have been subjected to destructive allegations and recriminations. Many honorable men and women, the TPD, and the community at large have suffered as a result. The City and the Plaintiffs have now entered into a
106 The Court, in deciding that the proposed decree is in the best interest of the commwlity, has also considered the opinions of those involved in the casc for the past nine years.
As noted above, it is evident by their submission of a proposed decree that Plaintiffs and the City
have recognized the "value of a resolution by negotiated agreement between the parties." See Kauleyv. United States, No. CJV-84-3306-T, 1991 WL 1281535, *3 (W.D.Okla. Dec. 6, 2001) (approving settlement agreement over thir4-party objections). This recognition is further evidenced by the many months Plaintiff-: and the City have spent in settlement negotiations in an
effort to craft such a resolution. The Court finds that the Oecem'ber 2002 -b'ecree is a better
resolution of this case than would have come from a trial on the merits and a subsequent appeaL Id. ("Being the efforts of especially knowledgeable persons, it offers improvements in fonns substantially beyond the prospects of a litigated conclusion.").
121

Case 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM Document 1026 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/12/03 Page 122 of 122
proposed consent decree to end this lawsuit. This resolution was crafted in good faith and offers
the parties and the community the opportunity to settle this case and move forward.
The Court hereby approves and adopts the December 2002 Decree as a reasonable, adequate, and just resolution of the claims raised in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED. This 12th day of May, 2003.
• United States District Judge
122

 
 Johnson v. City of Tulsa
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma September 26, 2003, Decided ; September 29, 2003, Filed CASE NO. 94-CV-39-H(M)

Reporter: 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26376; 2003 WL 24015153 ROY C. JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, a municipal corporation, and FRATERNAL ORDER OF THE POLICE, LODGE NO. 93, Defendants.
Subsequent History: Subsequent appeal at, Remanded by Johnson v. City of Tulsa, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 13915 (10th Cir. Okla., June 14, 2007)
Prior History: Johnson v. City of Tulsa, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26377 (N.D. Okla., Aug. 29, 2003)
Counsel: [*1] For Roy C Johnson, Plaintiff: Jean Walpole Coulter, Coulter Tucker PC, TULSA, OK; Louis Werner Bullock, Patricia Whittaker Bullock, Miller, Keffer & Bullock, TULSA, OK.
For All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff: James Randall Miller, Robert Murray Blakemore, Louis Werner Bullock, Patricia Whittaker Bullock, Miller Keffer & Bullock, TULSA, OK; Jean Walpole Coulter, Coulter Tucker PC, TULSA, OK.
For Anthony T Ingram, Sr, Plaintiff, Pro se, Broken Arrow, OK.

For Steven L Gibbs, Debbie R Crisp, Ray D Nelson, Gary L Pitts, Plaintiffs: Louis Werner Bullock, Patricia Whittaker Bullock, Miller Keffer & Bullock, TULSA, OK.
For Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93, Intervenor Defendant: Douglas Langston Rogers, James E Phillips, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease LLP, Columbus, OH; Jason Allen Robertson, Secrest Hill & Butler, TULSA, OK; Loren F Gibson, Gibson & Associates, P.L.C., OKLAHOMA CITY, OK; Scott Boudinot Wood, Wood Puhl & Wood, Tulsa, OK.
Judges: Sven Erik Holmes, United States District Judge.
Opinion by: Sven Erik Holmes
Opinion
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON THE DEFENDANT CITY OF TULSA'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

For Tulsa, City of, Defendant: Christopher Lee Abernathy, The Abernathy Law Firm PC, Tulsa OK; Ellen Rachel Hinchee, Jean Ann Hudson, Larry Vernon Simmons, Tulsa City Attorney, Tulsa, OK; Joel L Wohlgemuth, Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler & Dowdell, Tulsa, OK; Martha Rupp Carter, Tulsa City-County Health Department, Tulsa, OK.
For Matthew Wick, Claimant: Jean Walpole Coulter, Coulter Tucker PC, TULSA, OK; Louis Werner Bullock, Patricia Whittaker Bullock, Robert Murray Blakemore, Miller Keffer & Bullock, TULSA, OK.

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of the City of Tulsa for preliminary injunctive relief against the intervenor/defendant Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 93 (hereinafter the "FOP") (Dkt. #1134). On September 18, 2003 the Court conducted a hearing [*3] on the City's motion and received oral argument from the parties to supplement their briefing in respect to the issues presented by the competing briefs. Based on a review of the record in this case, as well as the applicable authorities, the Court hereby enters the following findings of fact with respect to the City of Tulsa's motion for a preliminary injunction:

For John A Gaberino, Jr, Special Master, Pro se, ONEOK Inc, Tulsa, OK.
For Mark A Moore, Dwight E Jackson, Deborah J DanielsFleak, Debra D Dickens, Tammara McKinney-Olden, Rufus E Newsome, Tyrone D Lynn, Marvin [*2] Blades, Walter E Busby, Jr, Derrek L Lewis, Cornelius D Finley, Albert L Young, Plaintiffs: Jean Walpole Coulter, Coulter Tucker PC, TULSA, OK; Louis Werner Bullock, Patricia Whittaker Bullock, Miller Keffer & Bullock, TULSA, OK.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On May 2, 2002 the FOP moved to intervene in this action. On September 10, 2002 the Court granted the FOP's motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). In so doing, the Court found the FOP satisfied the four-factor test for intervention articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties of Stable Economic Growth v. Dep't of Interior, 100 F.3d 837, 840 (10th Cir. 1996).

2. In a September 10, 2002 Order granting the FOP's motion to intervene, the Court stated that the intervention

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26376, *3

Page 2 of 4

of the FOP would not necessitate further pleadings or

additional discovery as suggested by the plaintiffs. To the 7. Notwithstanding the Court's approval of the Consent

contrary, the FOP was granted intervenor status [*4] in this Decree and its own appeal of this [*6] Court's Order to the

case as then pled. As a result, the FOP was to be a full Tenth Circuit, on June 9, 2003 the FOP filed 24 grievances.

participant and party to the proceedings, and was to be bound Three additional grievances were filed thereafter. These 27

by any adjudication resulting from the plaintiffs' claims for grievances attack the Court's May 12, 2003 Order on the basis equitable relief, as stated in their Second Amended that, by entering into the Consent Decree, the City violated

Complaint.

the Collective Bargaining Agreement which designates the

FOP as the exclusive bargaining agent for the Tulsa Police

3. On December 3, 2002 plaintiffs and the City filed a Joint Department. The relief requested by the FOP in each of these

Motion for Approval and Adoption of the Consent Decree. On grievances is for the City to cease, desist, rescind and

January 8, 2003 the FOP filed its objections to the proposed invalidate all actions taken to comply with the Consent

Consent Decree. The FOP objected to the Consent Decree on Decree.

three essential grounds, to-wit:

8. On May 22, 2003 the FOP filed a motion requesting that

First, the Consent Decree unilaterally obligated the Tulsa this Court stay the Consent Decree until the Tenth Circuit

Police Department to adopt and/or change policies that are Court of Appeals decided the FOP's appeal of the District

subject to mandatory bargaining and thus constitute unfair Court's May 12, 2003 Order approving the Consent Decree

labor practices under the Oklahoma Fire and Police and the Consent Decree itself. The stay motion was denied by

Arbitration Act (FPAA), and the Collective Bargaining the Tenth Circuit on June 18, 2003.

Agreement (CBA);

9. Although the Court's May 12, 2003 Order approving of the

Second, the Consent Decree violated the FPAA and the CBA Consent Decree expressly states that "this decision will

because it substituted the Court for the required mandatory preclude the FOP from later arguing that the entry of the

arbitration process; and

Consent Decree violates its rights" (Order at p. 113), the FOP

grievances seek to relitigate specific issues already addressed

Third, the Consent Decree violated principles of federalism. and ruled [*7] on by this Court.

4. The Court held extensive hearings pursuant to the Joint Motion for Approval and required the parties to brief issues pertaining to whether the Consent Decree [*5] violated the FOP's rights in respect to the CBA, the FPAA or the principles of federalism. Neither the FOP, nor any member of the class, objected to the fairness of those proceedings.
5. On May 12, 2003 the Court approved the Consent Decree and overruled the objections of the FOP. In that Order the Court stated:
"The Court further finds that because the FOP has had an opportunity to present its objections to the proposed decree and because the Court has thoroughly considered those objections, the FOP has been afforded 'all process that [it] was due'. Thus the Court finds that it may approve the December 2002 Decree over the FOP's objections."(Order at p. 113). The Court explained that the settlement satisfied the factors outlined in Gottlieb v. Wiles, 11 F.3d 1004, 1014 (10th Cir. 1993). Additionally, the Court determined that the Consent Decree did not violate any contractual or legal rights of the FOP.
6. On May 28, 2003 the FOP appealed the Court's May 12, 2003 Order approving the Consent Decree to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

10. On June 24, 2003 the City requested that the FOP withdraw the grievances and stated that the sole appropriate route for the FOP to challenge the Court's Order was by direct appeal to the Tenth Circuit, which the FOP had already taken.
11. On June 26, 2003 the FOP requested arbitration of all grievances. The FOP thus intends to ask a labor arbitrator to invalidate the City's agreement to the Consent Decree and this Court's approval of the Consent Decree.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
12. In order to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must establish that (1) the movant will suffer irreparable injury, (2) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause to the opposing party, (3) the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest, and (4) there is a substantial likelihood the movant will prevail on the merits. FED. R. Civ. P. 65, Walmer v. United States Dep't of Def., 52 F.3d 851, 854 (10th Cir. 1995).
13. The Court concludes that the City has satisfied each of the required elements for injunctive relief:

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26376, *7

Page 3 of 4

(i) There [*8] is clearly a potential for irreparable injury identical issue with the same party or his privy and of

resulting from inconsistent adjudications of the federal courts, promoting judicial economy by preventing needless

including the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and an litigation." Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326,

arbitrator;

58 L. Ed. 2d 552, 99 S. Ct. 645, 649 (1979). Collateral

(ii) The threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause to the opposing party. Maintaining the status quo for resolution of the appeal

estoppel only applies when the party against whom the earlier decision is asserted has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the earlier case.

(an appeal initiated by the FOP itself) will not in any way do 16. To apply collateral estoppel, the following elements must

harm to the FOP;

be established: (a) the issue previously decided is identical

(iii) The preliminary injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest. Indeed, the public interest is always served when the appropriate legal processes are allowed to go forward. In this case the FOP has sought the adjudication of this matter before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any potential for inconsistent adjudications between

with the one preseated in the action in question; (b) the prior action has been finally adjudicated on the merits; (c) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party, or in privity with a party, to the prior adjudication; and (d) the party against whom the doctrine is raised has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior action.

the Tenth Circuit and an arbitrator would undermine the 17. There has been [*11] an assertion that the FOP has not

appellate process; and

had an opportunity to litigate the claims of discrimination.

However, it is clear that this is not in any way sufficient to (iv) The likelihood of success on the merits clearly weighs in defeat the application of collateral estoppel. Indeed, the issues favor of the City and the plaintiffs insofar as the legal issues now presented to this Court are identical to issues previously

are involved.

presented in the determination of whether or not the

14. As noted by counsel for the FOP, the first issue to be addressed is whether the Court retains jurisdiction over this action due to the pending appeal before the Tenth Circuit. [*9] The Tenth Circuit has found that a court may exercise ancillary jurisdiction over cases to "enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 379, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1676, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1996). Although a

Collective Bargaining Agreement was violated by the entry of the Consent Decree. The prior action has been finally adjudicated on the merits. The party against whom the doctrine is invoked (the FOP) was a party to that action pursuant to its own request that it intervene. The FOP'S request was granted, and it was given a full and fair opportunity to participate. Finally, the party against whom the doctrine is raised has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. That is absolutely the case here.

notice of appeal divests the lower court of jurisdiction over a case, lower courts retain jurisdiction after the filing of a notice of appeal over tangential matters and certain ministerial functions in aid of the appeal. Griggs, et al. v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 74 L. Ed. 2d 225, 103 S.Ct. 400, 402 (1982); see also 16A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT AND ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3949.1 (3d ed. 1999).

18. The Court concludes that applying the doctrines of collateral estoppel and issue preclusion, the Court clearly should be able to estop the filing of grievances which undertake to relitigate the issues previously resolved. In this respect, the Court further cites as authority Miller Brewing Co. v. Fort Worth Distrib. Co., 781 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1986). [*12]

This principle is sound in light of the fact that staying the 19. Because the law and the facts support the entry of

mandate or staying the effect of an order appealed does not injunctive relief, the Court would finally note as a historical

affect the relief afforded by or the rationale of the order matter that it granted the FOP's motion to intervene and made

appealed, and therefore does not interfere with the Tenth the FOP a party to this case. As a result, the FOP was a full

Circuit's review of the order appealed. Applying this principle participant and is bound by the results of this adjudication.

to the instant case, the Court finds that the jurisdiction over Although the Court has approved the Consent Decree, that is

the City's motion is proper in this [*10] case.

not the final word. To the contrary, the Court's decision is

15. The Court now turns to an analysis of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which is the legal basis advanced by the City in support of its request for injunctive relief. The doctrine of collateral estoppel "… has the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an

subject to an appeal properly presented to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The FOP has presented such an appeal seeking review of the legal issue of whether the Consent Decree violated the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. That appeal is pending. This is our legal process and the FOP has received every right and opportunity to

participate in

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26376, *12

Page 4 of 4

that process. Indeed, there can be no question that this Court currently pending an appeal of precisely the same legal issues

has afforded the FOP its due process rights in every respect. for which arbitration is now sought. Accordingly, a

restraining order must issue maintaining the status quo until

20. The FOP seeks to subvert this process by relitigating the the Court of Appeals has had an opportunity to decide the

same issues in a different forum before an arbitrator. The goal appeal without being subjected to deliberate confusion and

here is clear: The FOP seeks to avoid our judicial system in obstruction. hopes of receiving an inconsistent determination from a

different forum. The FOP sought this forum, [*13] litigated 22. At this time the Court will enter a preliminary injunction

in this forum, and was subject to the judgment entered in this in favor of the City of Tulsa and against the FOP. The FOP

forum. The proper avenue of appeal from a judgment in this will have ten (10) days from the file date of this Order within

forum is an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth which to withdraw the 27 grievances which were the subject

Circuit, which has been done in this case. It is not proper to of the hearing held on September 18, 2003.

simply start over in an alternative forum with a clear intention

of subverting what has happened here.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2003.

21. In the judgment of this Court the 27 grievances, filed by Sven Erik Holmes

the FOP, disrespect our legal system in general, as well as the

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the FOP has

United [*14] States District Judge

 
 USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 1 of 115
CLASS, CLOSED, DISCREF, LC−1, PROTO, R/R, SEH, SETCON
U.S. District Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:94−cv−00039−TCK−FHM

Johnson, et al v. Tulsa, City of Assigned to: Judge Terence Kern Referred to: Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Demand: $1,530,000 Case in other court: 10th Circuit, 05−05064
03−05086(#1035cvcnsl/pd)
10th Circuit, 05−05064 (#1346)
10th Circuit, :03− −05086 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/14/1994 Date Terminated: 05/23/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Roy C Johnson

represented by Guinise Marie Marshall address unknown 00000 TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jean Walpole Coulter Jean Walpole Coulter &Associates, Inc. 406 S BOULDER STE 712 TULSA, OK 74103 918−583−6394 Fax: 918−583−6398 Email: jeancoult@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis Barber , Jr Barber &Marshall 1528 NE 23rd St Ste 410 Oklahoma City, OK 73111 405−424−5201 TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock Bullock Bullock &Blakemore, PLLC 110 W 7TH ST STE 707 TULSA, OK 74119 918−584−2001 Fax: 918−749−4383 Email: lbullock@bullock−blakemore.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden &Nelson (Tulsa) 320 S BOSTON STE 200 TULSA, OK 74103−3706 918−594−0400 Fax: 918−594−0505 Email: mlissau@hallestill.com TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 2 of 115

Michele Ticknor Gehres Hartman, Blackstock &Moore P O BOX 700690 TULSA, OK 74170−0690 918−712−3246 Fax: 918−712−5042 TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

N Kay Bridger−Riley Bridger−Riley &Associates PC 4528 S SHERIDAN AVE STE 216 TULSA, OK 74145 918−794−9690 Fax: 918−794−9691 Email: kay@bridger−riley.com TERMINATED: 08/16/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Whittaker Bullock Bullock Bullock &Blakemore, PLLC 110 W 7TH ST STE 707 TULSA, OK 74119 918−584−2001 Fax: 918−779−4383 Email: pbullock@bullock−blakemore.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Issac Mayes , Jr address unknown TERMINATED: 09/15/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff All Plaintiffs

represented by James Randall Miller The Miller Law Group, PLLC 222 S KENOSHA AVE TULSA, OK 74120−2421 918−743−4460 Fax: 918−743−6689 Email: rmiller@millerlawtulsa.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 3 of 115

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Murray Blakemore Bullock Bullock &Blakemore, PLLC 110 W 7TH ST STE 707 TULSA, OK 74119 918−584−2001 Fax: 918−779−4383 Email: bblakemore@bullock−blakemore.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anthony T Ingram, Sr

represented by Anthony T Ingram, Sr 20779 E 48th ST S BROKEN ARROW, OK 74014−8756 PRO SE

V. Defendant Tulsa, City of

represented by Christopher Lee Abernathy address unknown 00000 918−382−0455 Fax: 918−585−9759 Email: cla@abernathylawfirm.com TERMINATED: 01/22/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
David E Gevertz Paul Hastings Janofsky &Walker (Atlanta−600) 600 Peachtree St NE Ste 2400 Atlanta, GA 30308−2222 404−815−2400 Fax: 815−2424 TERMINATED: 01/09/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY
Deirdre O Dexter Tulsa City Attorney 175 E SECOND ST STE 685 TULSA, OK 74103 918−596−7717 Fax: 918−596−9700 Email: DDexter@ci.tulsa.ok.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ellen Rachel Hinchee Tulsa City Attorney 175 E SECOND ST STE 685 TULSA, OK 74103 918−596−7717 Fax: 918−596−9700 Email: EHinchee@ci.tulsa.ok.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald M Bender Tulsa City Attorney

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 4 of 115
175 E SECOND ST STE 685 TULSA, OK 74103 918−596−7717 Fax: 918−596−9700 Email: GBENDER@CITYOFTULSA.ORG LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jean Ann Hudson Tulsa City Attorney 175 E SECOND ST STE 685 TULSA, OK 74103 918−596−7717 Fax: 596−9700 Email: jhudson@ci.tulsa.ok.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joel L Wohlgemuth Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler &Dowdell 401 S BOSTON AVE STE 2900 TULSA, OK 74103 918−583−7571 Fax: 918−584−7846 Email: jlw@nwcdlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry Vernon Simmons Tulsa City Attorney 175 E SECOND ST STE 685 TULSA, OK 74103 918−596−7717 Fax: 918−596−9700 Email: LSimmons@ci.tulsa.ok.us LEAD ATTORNEY
Martha Rupp Carter Tulsa City−County Health Department (5051) 5051 S 129th E Ave Tulsa, OK 74134−7004 918−595−4434 Fax: 918−595−4584 Email: mcarter@tulsa−health.org LEAD ATTORNEY
Nancy E Rafuse Paul Hastings Janofsky &Walker (Atlanta−600) 600 Peachtree St NE Ste 2400 Atlanta, GA 30308−2222 404−815−2400 Fax: 815−2424 TERMINATED: 01/09/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY
Paul F Prather 5071 PACIFICA DR SAN DIEGO, CA 92109 858−342−2405 Email: paul@paulprather.com TERMINATED: 03/30/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 5 of 115

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R Lawrence Ashe , Jr Paul Hastings Janofsky &Walker (Atlanta−600) 600 Peachtree St NE Ste 2400 Atlanta, GA 30308−2222 404−815−2400 Fax: 815−2424 TERMINATED: 01/09/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rebecca D Farber Paul Hastings Janofsky &Walker (Atlanta−600) 600 Peachtree St NE Ste 2400 Atlanta, GA 30308−2222 404−815−2400 Fax: 815−2424 TERMINATED: 01/09/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert Hughes Garner Tulsa City Attorney 175 E SECOND ST STE 685 TULSA, OK 74103 918−596−7717 Fax: 596−9700 TERMINATED: 02/14/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William F Kaspers Paul Hastings Janofsky &Walker (Atlanta−600) 600 Peachtree St NE Ste 2400 Atlanta, GA 30308−2222 404−815−2400 Fax: 815−2424 TERMINATED: 01/09/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY

Claimant Matthew Wick

represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Murray Blakemore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 6 of 115 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Movant
Lewis Jr Barber filed motion to quash 7/30/1 TERMINATED: 12/03/2002

represented by James Osby Goodwin Goodwin &Goodwin P O BOX 3267 TULSA, OK 74120−3267 918−582−9181 Fax: 918−599−0250 Email: jgoodwin@theoklahomaeagle.net TERMINATED: 12/03/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Objector
Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training CLEET TERMINATED: 12/03/2002

represented by Dan Michael Connally RICHARDSON LAW FIRM 312 WEST BROADWAY MUSKOGEE, OK 74401 405−521−3921 Fax: 521−6246 TERMINATED: 09/19/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY

V. Special Master John A Gaberino, Jr
Plaintiff Mark A Moore

represented by John A Gaberino, Jr ONEOK Inc 100 W 5th St Tulsa, OK 74103 PRO SE
Martin Allen Brown Mulinix Ogden Hall Andrews &Ludlam PLLC 210 PARK AVE STE 3030 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 405−232−3800 Fax: 405−232−8999 Email: martin.brown@lawokc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 7 of 115

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dwight E Jackson

represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Steven L Gibbs

represented by Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 8 of 115

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Paula D Anderson TERMINATED: 04/18/2001

represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/18/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak

represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 9 of 115

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Debbie R Crisp

represented by Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Debra D Dickens

represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 10 of 115

Plaintiff Nancy E Reed TERMINATED: 03/07/2001
Plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 11 of 115

TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rufus E Newsome

represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn

represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 12 of 115

TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Marvin Blades

represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Walter E Busby, Jr

represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 13 of 115

TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Derrek L Lewis

represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ray D Nelson

represented by Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 14 of 115

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Cornelius D Finley

represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gary L Pitts

represented by Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 15 of 115

Albert L Young

represented by Jean Walpole Coulter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis Barber , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

Louis Werner Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michele Ticknor Gehres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

Patricia Whittaker Bullock (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor Defendant
Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93

represented by Donald Mitchell Bingham Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison &Lewis (Tulsa−502) 502 W 6TH ST TULSA, OK 74119−1010 918−587−3161 Fax: 918−587−9708 Email: don_bingham@riggsabney.com TERMINATED: 06/13/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY
Douglas Langston Rogers Vorys Sater Seymour &Pease LLP (Columbus) 52 E Gay St Columbus, OH 43216−1008 614−464−6400 Fax: 614−464−6350 Email: dlrogers@vssp.com LEAD ATTORNEY
Douglas D Vernier Moore &Vernier PC 301 NW 63RD ST STE 550 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73116 405−843−9675 Fax: 405−843−9680 Email: doug.vernier@moorelawok.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 16 of 115
James E Phillips Vorys Sater Seymour &Pease LLP (Columbus) 52 E Gay St Columbus, OH 43216−1008 614−464−6400 Fax: 464−6350 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Ronald Polan Riggs Abney Neal Turpen Orbison &Lewis (Tulsa−502) 502 W 6TH ST TULSA, OK 74119−1010 918−587−3161 Fax: 918−584−1603 Email: jpolan@riggsabney.com TERMINATED: 06/13/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jason Allen Robertson Glendening McKenna Prescott &Robertson 10108 E 79TH ST TULSA, OK 74133 918−494−7037 Fax: 918−494−9907 Email: jrobertson@gmpoklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loren F Gibson Gibson &Associates, P.L.C. 105 N HUDSON STE 312 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 405−270−0900 Fax: 405−270−0903 Email: lgibson@legalavenger.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Boudinot Wood Wood Puhl &Wood 2409 E Skelly Dr Ste 200 Tulsa, OK 74105 918−742−0808 Fax: 918−742−0812 Email: okcoplaw@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Robert Moore Moore &Vernier PC 301 NW 63RD ST STE 550 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73116 405−843−9675 Fax: 405−843−9680 Email: james.moore@moorelawok.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Sue Wycoff Moore &Vernier PC 301 NW 63RD ST STE 550

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 17 of 115
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73116 405−843−9675 Fax: 405−843−9680 Email: sue.wycoff@moorelawok.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/14/1994 02/01/1994 02/16/1994 02/17/1994
02/25/1994 03/23/1994 04/12/1994 04/15/1994
04/15/1994
04/18/1994
06/01/1994 06/03/1994
06/16/1994
06/16/1994 06/21/1994
06/22/1994 06/22/1994 06/23/1994

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued); Consent form sent (ksb, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/18/1994)
RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Tulsa, City of on 1/21/94 by cert mail. (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/01/1994)
2 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to extend time to answer.(O2J) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/16/1994)
3 ORDER by Chief Judge James O. Ellison; granting motion to extend time to answer [2−1]l. Deft is given until 2/25/94. (cc: mvnt counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/17/1994)
4 ANSWER by defendant Tulsa, City of to [1−1]. (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/1994)
MINUTE ORDER: CASE MGMT/STATUS HRG set for 1:50 4/15/94 before Magistrate John L. Wagner (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/23/1994)
CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN Received. (to file) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
MINUTES: by Magistrate John L. Wagner ; Status hearing held 4/15/94; schedo entered; sett conf req after 5/15/94; no to adj. (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/15/1994)
5 SCHEDULING ORDER Magistrate John L. Wagner motion filing ddl set for 10/14/94 discovery due 10/3/94 proposed pretrial order due 11/25/94 ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 11:00 12/2/94 ; JURY TRIAL set for 9:30 1/17/95; ETT 3 days. (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/15/1994)
6 ORDER by Magistrate Jeffrey S. Wolfe SETTLMT CONF set for 1:30 6/27/94 before Magistrate Jeffrey S. Wolfe; stmts due 6/20/94. (JSW−MJ) (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/18/1994)
7 MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to extend time to file witness list.(O2J) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/01/1994)
8 ORDER by Chief Judge James O. Ellison; granting motion to extend time to file witness list [7−1]. Pltf is given until 6/16/94. (cc: mvnt counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/1994)
MINUTE ORDER: Case is transferred to the docket of and reassigned to Judge Terry C. Kern from Chief Judge James O. Ellison ; HEREAFTER, the case will be referred to as the New Case Number 94−C−39−K and all files should be marked accordingly.(JOE−J) (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/16/1994)
9 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson, defendant Tulsa, City of to extend time to file witn lists(O2J) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/17/1994)
10 ORDER by Judge Terry C. Kern; granting motion to extend time to file witn lists [9−1]. Ptys are given until 6/23/94. (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/22/1994)
11 WITNESS list by defendant Tulsa, City of (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/23/1994)
12 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for leave to appear w/ rep having ltd auth at stlmnt conf −o2jsw (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/23/1994)
13 WITNESS list by plaintiff Roy C Johnson (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/24/1994)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 18 of 115

06/28/1994 07/01/1994
08/08/1994 08/23/1994 03/07/1995
04/13/1995
05/12/1995
05/30/1995 02/06/1996 02/14/1996 02/14/1996 02/14/1996 02/14/1996 02/14/1996 02/14/1996
02/29/1996 05/01/1996

MINUTE ORDER: finding the motion for leave to appear w/ rep having ltd auth at stlmnt conf [12−1] moot as settlement conf was held. (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/28/1994)
14 ORDER by Judge Terry C. Kern; Discovery ddl; Motion filing ddl; Pretrial order ddl; Pretrial conference; Jury trial all strickeni. CASE STAYED in order to facilitate the settlement process. (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/05/1994)
15 MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to withdraw attorney Guinise M Marshall −o2j (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/09/1994)
16 ORDER by Judge Terry C. Kern granting motion to withdraw attorney Guinise M Marshall [15−1] (cc: mvt counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/23/1994)
MINUTE ORDER: Case transferred and reassigned to Judge Sven E. Holmes from the docket of Judge Terry Kern. Hereafter, the case will be referred to with the new case number, 94cv39−H and all files should be marked accordingly. (TCK) (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/07/1995)
MINUTE ORDER: This case is hereby transferred and reassigned from Magistrate Judge Wagner to Magistrate Judge Frank McCarthy under the supervision of the assigned district judge for all further proceedings in accordance with their jurisdiction pursuant to FRCP. (TRB−J) (cc: all counsel) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/13/1995)
MINUTE ORDER: IT IS ORDERED THAT this case was stayed on July 1, 1994, to facilitate the parties' settlement negotiations. The Court has not received any indication as to the status of such settlement negotiations. The parties are asked to submit a joint status report within 14 days. (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/15/1995)
17 Joint STATUS REPORT by plaintiff Roy C Johnson, defendant Tulsa, City of (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/31/1995)
MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ordered that a STATUS HRG is set for 2:30 p.m. on 2/14/96 before Judge Holmes.(SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/06/1996)
18 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to withdraw attorney Robert H. Garner (O2Jbycnsl) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/14/1996)
19 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Tulsa, City of by Paul F Prather (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/14/1996)
20 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Tulsa, City of by Ellen R Hinchee (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/14/1996)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes ; Status hearing held 2/14/96 , Discussion re: Status/case and stay is lifted ; Sched ord entered. (G. Dorrough−Ct rptr) (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 02/26/1996 (Entered: 02/15/1996)
21 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to withdraw attorney Robert H. Garner [18−1] for Tulsa, City of (cc: mvt counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/15/1996)
22 STANDARD SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: mot/lim due 8/1/96; discovery due 7/1/96; proposed pretrial order due 9/6/96; PRETRIAL CONF set for 3:30 p.m. on 9/13/96 ; JURY TRIAL set for 9:30 a.m. on 10/21/96 before Judge Holmes.(See Ord for frthr ddls) (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/15/1996)
23 ORDER by Magistrate John L. Wagner SETTLMT CONF set for 1:30 7/25/96 before Magistrate John L. Wagner (cc: all counsel) (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/29/1996)
24 MOTION w/ brf by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to certify class action , or, in the alternative, for joinder of addl parties (o2lc) (mail cpy rtrnd) (seal, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/1996)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 19 of 115

05/01/1996 05/24/1996 06/03/1996 06/04/1996 06/04/1996 06/14/1996 06/14/1996
06/17/1996 06/18/1996 06/21/1996
06/21/1996
06/25/1996 06/28/1996 06/28/1996 07/02/1996 07/02/1996
08/05/1996
08/26/1996

25 MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to extend ddl to join addl parties , or to amend complaint (o2lc) (mail cpy rtrnd) (seal, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/1996)
26 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to certify class action [24−1], to motion for joinder of addl parties [24−2] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/28/1996)
27 WITNESS list by defendant Tulsa, City of (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/1996)
28 PARTIAL REPLY by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to dfdt's response to pla's motion to certify class action [24−1] or for joinder of addl parties [24−2]... (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/05/1996)
28 ...MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to change rply ddl re motion for clas action or to join addl parties (o2j) (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/05/1996)
29 MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to change rply to motion for class action or joinder of addl parties (o2j) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/17/1996)
MINUTE ORDER: It is ordered that plaintiff's motion to change reply deadline to his motion for class action or joinder of additional parties [29−1] and motion to certify class action [24−1], [24−2] is granted; reply deadline extended to 6/18/96 (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/26/1996)
30 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of, plaintiff Roy C Johnson to amend scheduling order ddls (o2j) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
31 REPLY by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to dfdt's response to pla's motion to certify class action [24−1] or for joinder of addl parties [24−2] (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/19/1996)
MINUTE ORDER: It is ordered that plaintiff's motion to change reply deadline regarding its motion for class action or to join additional parties [28−1] is granted; setting reply deadline to motion to certify class action [24−1] and for joinder of additional parties [24−2] to: 6/14/96 (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/24/1996)
MINUTE ORDER: It is ordered that the joint motion to amend scheduling order deadlines [30−1] is granted; present scheduling order deadlines are stricken ; the Court will reschedule a status conference for the purpose of setting future scheduling deadlines and notify the parties of the date for such conference (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/24/1996)
MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ordered that a Motion to certify class action [24−1] HRG is set for 1:15 p.m. on 8/5/96 before Judge Holmes. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/25/1996)
32 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of, plaintiff Roy C Johnson to continue settlement conf (o2jlw) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/01/1996)
MINUTE ORDER: referring to Magistrate John L. Wagner the motion to continue settlement conf [32−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/01/1996)
MINUTE ORDER: finding the motion to continue settlement conf [32−1] moot. (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/02/1996)
33 ORDER by Magistrate John L. Wagner granting the joint motion to continue settlement conf [32−1]; the court will reschedule a settlement conference upon the joint application of the parties (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/03/1996)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Pltf req cont of 60 days−Ct grnts &Mot Hrg re: certify class action [24−1] &joinder of addl parties [24−2] is cont to 2:30 p.m. on 10/4/96; Any frthr filings re: this matter due by 9/27/96; ct will consider joinder only on those indivs w/separate filings.(G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/1996)
34 AFFIDAVIT of Rufus Newsome (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/1996)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 20 of 115

08/26/1996 08/26/1996 08/26/1996 08/26/1996 08/26/1996 08/26/1996 08/26/1996 08/26/1996 08/26/1996 08/26/1996 08/26/1996 09/04/1996 09/04/1996 09/04/1996 09/04/1996 09/05/1996 09/27/1996
10/02/1996 10/04/1996
10/04/1996 10/08/1996

35 AFFIDAVIT of Deborah D Dickens (mail copy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
36 AFFIDAVIT of Albert Young (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
37 AFFIDAVIT of Derrick L Lewis (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
38 AFFIDAVIT of Marvin Blades (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
39 AFFIDAVIT of Debbie R Crisp (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
40 AFFIDAVIT of Deborah J Daniels (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
41 AFFIDAVIT of Walter E Busby, Jr. (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
42 AFFIDAVIT of Tyrone D Lynn (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
43 AFFIDAVIT of Cornelious D Finley (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
44 AFFIDAVIT of Tammara McKinney−Olden (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
45 AFFIDAVIT of Ray D Nelson (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/1996)
46 AFFIDAVIT of Mark A Moore (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/05/1996)
47 AFFIDAVIT of Dwight E Jackson (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/05/1996)
48 AFFIDAVIT of Gary L Pitts (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/05/1996)
49 AFFIDAVIT of Nancy E Reed (mail cpy rtrnd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/05/1996)
50 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Roy C Johnson by Robert Issac Mayes Jr (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/09/1996)
51 EVIDENTIARY BRIEF by plaintiff Roy C Johnson in support of its reply [31−1] to dfdt's motion to certify class action [24−1] and for joinder of addl parties [24−2] (mail, no env) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/1996)
52 AFFIDAVIT of Walter Busby, Jr. (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/04/1996)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes Mot Hrg on certify class action [24−1] on 10/4/96; discussion re: class certif; ptf hs conducted addtl disc &announces witn are available in the ctrm today−pltf submits evid w/testmny/witn; pltf may submit joinder/16 addtl pltfs w/proper mots &pltf may submit proper interrog by 11/4/96; resp are due by 11/25/96; hrg set for 2:30 p.m. on 11/25/96; ct moves the resp date up to 11/22/96; pltf req 5 days to present interrog to deft, allow deft 30 days, &then set hrg−City obj−Ct ord dates remain as set &if any prob, pty to file mot &ct will reconvene for such matter.(G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/04/1996)
53 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Roy C Johnson by Guinise M Marshall (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/07/1996)
54 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes stating that to be considered for joinder under Rule 20, each prospective pla must file by 11/4/96 an individual motion for permissive joinder setting forth the specific allegations of fact that form the basis of the potential pla's clms and the reasons why such allegations satisfy the

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 21 of 115

10/08/1996 10/15/1996 10/15/1996 10/24/1996
10/24/1996 10/25/1996
11/01/1996 11/01/1996 11/01/1996
11/01/1996 11/04/1996 11/06/1996 11/08/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996

requirements of Rule 20; dfdt will have untl 11/22/96 to respond to each such motion; the Court continues the period for discovery until 11/4/96; dfdt will have until 11/22/96 to rsp to pla's motion for class certification; any problems with discovery which jeopardize ddls set forth herein should be brough promptly before the Court for disposition; Court will hold a hearing on pending motions to certify class action [24−1] and for joinder of addl parties [24−2] for 2:30 on 11/25/96 (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/09/1996)
TRANSCRIPT of motion hrg (excerpt) before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date of: 8/5/96 (C/R Glen Dorrough); 9 pages (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/11/1996)
TRANSCRIPT of motion hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 10/4/96 (C/R Glen R. Dorrough; 42 pgs) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/17/1996)
TRANSCRIPT of motion hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 8/5/96 (C/R Glen R. Dorrough; 22 pgs) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/17/1996)
MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ordered that a Discovery HRG is set for 2:15 p.m. on 10/25/96 before Judge Holmes. Copies of all outstanding discovery is to be brought to court. (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel &pties phoned by CRD) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
55 MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to shorten time to resp to discovery , or in the alternative, to extend discovery ddln (O2J) (mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes Disc Hrg held 10/25/96; pltf req ext/tm taking depos frm 11/4/96 to 11/12/96−deft states they can resp by 11/25/96; proper interrog subm due 11/12/96 &resp due 11/25/96; ea prospectv pltf to file by 11/12/96 indiv mot/permissive joinder setting forth spec alleg of fact tht form the basis of the potential pltf's clms &the reasons why such alleg satisfy the req of Rule 20 &resp due 11/25/96; period of disc extended to 11/12/96 &resp 11/25/96.(G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ordered that a HRG on the Motion to Compel is set for 2:00 p.m. on 11/1/96 before Judge Holmes. (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel &pties phoned by CRD) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
56 MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to compel , and for sanctions (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes Mot hrg on mot/compel held 11/1/96 ; argmts heard; deft's resp to pltf's mot/comp was filed; pties to immed file bfr close/bus Monday, 11/4/96 a jt sched/discvry &any prot ord, if desired; phone conf will be set immed if there are any frthr probs; City states it is willing to stipul pltf entitled to permissive joinder−ct states a mot would need to be filed; class certif will be last issue to be determined. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
57 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to compel [56−1] (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
58 NOTICE by defendant Tulsa, City of of taking deposition of 5 people on various dates (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
59 MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to change time to resp (reply) to m/certify class (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/07/1996)
MINUTE ORDER: granting motion to change time to resp (reply) to m/certify class [59−1]. Plaintiff granted to 11/19/96 to respond in further support of pltf. mo/certify class. (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/08/1996)
60 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Mark A Moore to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
61 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Dwight E Jackson to mtn for class action [24−1] or alternatively, joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 22 of 115

11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/12/1996 11/19/1996

62 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Steven L Gibbs to mtn for class action [24−1] or alternatively, joinder of addtl parties [24−2] (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
63 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Paula D Anderson to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively, joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
64 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Deborah J Daniels−Fleak to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
65 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Debbie R Crisp to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively, joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
66 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Debra D Dickens to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
67 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Nancy E Reed to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
68 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Tammara McKinney−Olden to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
69 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Rufus E Newsome to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
70 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Tyrone D Lynn to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
71 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Marvin Blades to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
72 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Walter E Busby Jr to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
73 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Derrek L Lewis to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
74 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Ray D Nelson to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
75 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Cornelius D Finley to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
76 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Gary L Pitts to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
77 AMENDED MOTION by unknown Albert L Young to motion for class action [24−1] or alternatively joinder of addtl parties [24−2] and brf in supp (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
78 MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to extend time to suppl 2d amd m/class action (O2J) or alternatively, joinder of addtl parties (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/1996)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 23 of 115

11/19/1996 11/21/1996
11/22/1996 11/22/1996 11/25/1996 01/03/1997
02/04/1997 04/11/1997
04/11/1997
04/22/1997 06/25/1997 07/07/1997 07/07/1997 07/16/1997 07/16/1997

79 SECOND AMENDED MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson for class action or alternatively, joinder of addtl parties [24−1] and brf in supp (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court will consider Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time [78−1] regarding the deadline for supplementing his Second Amended Motion for Class Action or Alternatively Joinder of Additional Parties and Brief in Support [79−1] at the scheduled hearing on Monday, 11/25/96 at 2:30 p.m. (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (parties phoned) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
REMARK: Pties phoned re: minute ord setting hrg on 11/26/96 at 2:30 p.m. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
80 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to certify class action [24−1] and alternatively, motion for joinder of addl parties (C2lc) [24−2] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 11/25/96; pndg mots discussed; argmts on (#24) class actn cont for 30 days to 11:30 a.m. on 1/3/97 before Judge Holmes;pltf gvn 2 wks to file reply to mot/calss actn or in altern for joinder of addtl pties. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes; Motion Hearing on Class Certif held on 1/3/97; pltf req/cont mot hrg−deft has no obj−pltf req 60 day cont−deft has no obj to even longer time frame−ct grnts &hrg cont to 10:15 a.m. on 4/11/97 before Judge Holmes; addtl doc/pldgs due 4/2/97. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
81 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Roy C Johnson by Jean Walpole Coulter and Lewis Barber, Jr. (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/06/1997)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 4/11/97; argmts heard on mot/certify class actn or in altern for joinder of addtl pties 24 ; ct grnts mot/joinder of addtl pties &dt den mot/certify class actn; ct will consid at later time re−urgin of class certif; sched ord entered. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/17/1997)
82 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: dispos motion filing ddl set for 9/9/97; discovery due 9/2/97; proposed pretrial order due 11/14/97 ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 1:30 11/21/97 ; JURY TRIAL set for 9:30 12/15/97; ETT: 14−21 days. (See ord for frthr ddls) (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/17/1997)
83 ORDER by Magistrate Sam A. Joyner SETTLMT CONF set for 1:30 9/8/97 before Magistrate Sam A. Joyner; stmts due 9/2/97. (SAJ−MJ) (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
84 MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson for administrative closure (O/J) (Mail−copy ret'd) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/26/1997)
MINUTE ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Motion Hearing is set on the Motion for Administrative Closure [84−1] for 12:30 p.m. on 7/22/97 before Judge Holmes. (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/07/1997)
85 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes denying motion to certify class action [24−1], granting motion for joinder of addtl parties [24−2]; Crt will permit re−urging of mtn for class certification, if Pltf can produce further evidence supporting class certification; (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/14/1997)
86 MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to continue hrg set for 7/22/97 at 12:30 p.m. (O2J) (mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
87 MOTION by plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Albert L Young to withdraw attorneys L. Barber, Jr. and G. Marshall (O2J)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 24 of 115

07/17/1997
07/23/1997 07/31/1997 07/31/1997 08/05/1997 08/06/1997
08/14/1997 08/14/1997

(mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
MINUTE ORDER: This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to continue the hearing [86−1] on the issue of Plaintiffs' motion for administrative closure [84−1], scheduled for 7/22/97. Simultaneously, Plaintiffs' counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for all party plaintiffs except for the original plaintiff, Mr. Johnson [87−1]. The continuance is granted and these matters are set down for hearing on Wednesday, 8/6/97 at 1:00 p.m. In addition, in light of these recent developments, the Court will hear argument at that time as to whether the Court should reconsider its ruling by order dated 7/7/97, granting Plaintiffs' motions for joinder of parties; (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/21/1997)
88 MOTION by plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Albert L Young to withdraw attorney, Guinise M. Marshall (O2J) (mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/24/1997)
89 EXPERT WITNESS list by plaintiffs (C2J, mail−cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
90 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Albert L Young by Jean Walpole Coulter, Louis W Bullock, Patricia W Bullock, Michele T Gehres (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
91 RESPONSE by plaintiffs Mark A Moore, Dwight E Jackson, Steven L Gibbs, Paula D Anderson, Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, Debbie R Crisp, Debra D Dickens, Nancy E Reed, Tammara McKinney−Olden, Rufus E Newsome,Tyrone D Lynn, Marvin Blades, Walter E Busby Jr, Derrek L Lewis, Ray D Nelson, Cornelius D Finley, Gary L Pitts, Albert L Young to motion for administrative closure [84−1] (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/1997)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: pltf req pltf's mot/admin closure be WD−no obj−ct gr; pltf req attys Lewis Barber &G Marshall to be WD frm case−no obj if can have new sched ord−Mr. Bullock makes entry/appearnc as couns for all pltfs−ct gr; Mr. Bullock informs ct he needs tm to get paperwrk tgthr (5 pltfs are not pres although a 3rd pty rep pres): Steven gibbs, Debbie Crisp, Gary Pitts, Ray Nelson &Nancy Reed; Attys Marshall &Barber excused; pltf req sched ord−ct cont matter for 1 wk (8/14/97 at 1:00 p.m.); mot/join pties−ct will not reconsid (deft's mot/reconsid−den); any brfs due 8/14/97; Mr. Mayes is lested as atty/rec but deft states he has made no appearnc−ct directs Mr. Bullock to address this matter w/Mr. Mayes &file WD one wk frm tomorrow if tht is what is desired; hrg w/MJ Joyner set 9/8/97 at 1:30 p.m. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 08/14/1997 (Entered: 08/14/1997)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes Sched Hrg held 8/14/97 ; ct gr mot/WD as couns as to Mr. Mayes; entry/appearance filed in opn ct of couns Jean Coulter, Michele Gehres, Patricia Bullock, &Louis Bullock on bhlf of pltfs Roy Johnson, Debbie Crisp, Steven Gibbs, Ray Nelson, Gary Pitts, and Nancy Reed; 1st Amnded Cmplt due 9/2/97; class certif brfs due 9/22/97 w/resp due thereafter accrding to Fed Rules HRG re: class certif set for 4:00 p.m. on 11/14/97 ; sched ord entered.(G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 08/14/1997 (Entered: 08/14/1997)
MINUTE ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a HEARING re: class certification is set for 4:00 p.m. on 11/14/97 before Judge Holmes. Class certification briefs are due 9/22/97 and responses are due thereafter according to the Federal Rules. (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/1997)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 25 of 115

08/14/1997 08/14/1997
08/14/1997 08/20/1997 09/02/1997 09/03/1997 09/15/1997 09/17/1997
09/22/1997 09/24/1997 09/29/1997
09/30/1997 10/02/1997 10/02/1997 10/14/1997 10/17/1997

92 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Roy C Johnson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Gary L Pitts by Jean Walpole Coulter, Louis W Bullock, Patricia W Bullock, and Michele T Gehres (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/1997)
93 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: dispos mot ddl set for 2/2/98; discovery due 1/2/98; proposed pretrial order due 3/6/98 ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 9:30 a.m. on 3/13/98 ; NJ TRIAL set for 9:30 a.m. on 4/20/98; ETT: 5 days; AC due 9/2/97; class certif brfs due 9/22/97 &resp due thereafter according to Fed Rules. (See ord for frthr ddls) (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/1997)
94 MOTION by plaintiffs to withdraw attorney Robert Issac Mayes, Jr. (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/15/1997)
95 ORDER by Magistrate Sam A. Joyner SETTLMT CONF set 1:30 9/8/97 is stricken and is reset for 1:30 1/8/98 before Magistrate Sam A. Joyner; stmts due 1/2/98. (SAJ−MJ) (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/20/1997)
96 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend ddl to file 1st amended complaint (o2j) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
MINUTE ORDER: granting Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file first amended complaint [96−1] until 9/17/97; (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
MINUTE ORDER: granting Plaintiff's motion to withdraw attorney Robert Issac Mayes, Jr. [94−1] (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
97 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT [1−1] by plaintiff Roy C Johnson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Albert L Young (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/18/1997)
98 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend ddl to file class certification brf (o2j) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/23/1997)
MINUTE ORDER: granting Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file class certification brief [98−1] until 9/29/97 (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
99 MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Albert L Young to extend time to file class certification brf (O2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/1997)
MINUTE ORDER: granting Plaintiffs' motion to extend time to file class certification brief [99−1] to 10/2/97 (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/1997)
100 MOTION by plaintiffs to certify class action (c2j) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/03/1997)
101 BRIEF by plaintiffs in support of their motion to certify class action [100−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/03/1997)
102 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to extend time to resp to class certification brf (O2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/14/1997)
MINUTE ORDER: granting Defendant's motion for extension of time to file response [102−1] to class certification brief [100−1] until 11/3/97 (SEH−J) (cc: all

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 26 of 115

10/30/1997 10/30/1997 11/05/1997 11/07/1997 11/10/1997 11/12/1997 11/14/1997 11/14/1997
11/19/1997
12/01/1997
12/05/1997 12/10/1997 12/10/1997 12/10/1997 12/11/1997 12/16/1997

counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/17/1997)
103 SECOND MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to change time to file resp to class certification brf (O2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/1997)
104 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Tulsa, City of by Larry V Simmons (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/03/1997)
MINUTE ORDER: granting Defendant's second motion for additional time to file response [103−1] to class certification brief [100−1] until 11/7/97; (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
105 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to second motion to certify class action [100−1] (ksb, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/10/1997)
106 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiffs to reschedule hrg on m/class certification (O2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
107 RESPONSE (OBJECTION) by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to reschedule hrg on m/class certification (C2J) [106−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
108 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Tulsa, City of by Larry V. Simmons (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/17/1997)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes ; In−court hearing held 11/14/97 re: class certification. Pltf advises Ct that 11/24/ hrg date is not good date for him &that discovery needs are outstanding. Deft moves that Ct OR class actions. Pltf advises Ct that bfr Christmas may be more likely timing. Ct to review calendar &set hrg. Ct admonishes parties re: case moving expeditiously. Ct advises Defts that evid hrg re: class action is to be held. Pltf to set out specifics for deft re: discrimination of black officers &white officer's backup. If parties cannot agree on what is to be produced, they are to contact Ct for resolution. (SEH−J) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/18/1997)
MINUTE ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that an EVIDENTIARY HRG is set for 12:30 p.m. on 12/16/97−12/18/97 before Judge Holmes. This is contingent upon the time availability depending on the 12/15/97 criminal docket. Parties are directed to contact the clerk by noon on 12/12/97 to confirm. (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs' motion for class certification [100−1] is set down for a hearing to commence, contingent upon the Court's criminal docket, at 12:30 p.m. on 12/16/97, and to continue on December 17 and 18, 1997, if necessary. The Court orders Plaintiffs and Defendant each to file a list of witnesses they intend to call at the hearing, as well as any stipulations as to the testimony of such witnesses, by 12/10/97 . To the extent possible, the Court desires to accept, in lieu of live testimony, stipulations as to the substance of the proposed witnesses' testimony; (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
TRANSCRIPT of proceeding before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 11/14/97 (Re: Status Hrg) (C/R Glen R. Dorrough; 13 pgs) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/08/1997)
109 JOINT MOTION by parties for protective order (o2j) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
111 WITNESS list by defendant Tulsa, City of for hrg on pla's motion for class certification (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
112 WITNESS list by plaintiffs (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
110 MOTION w/ brf by plaintiffs for leave to file 2nd amended class action complaint (o2j w/ complaint) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Evid hrg held on mot/certify class action [100−1] on 12/16/97; opning stmts made; pltf pres evid w/testmny of witn; pties advised by ct to revw indiv clms of indiv pties &do any jt stipul tht may be poss; cont to 10:00 a.m. on 12/17/97.(G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/17/1997)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 27 of 115

12/16/1997 12/17/1997 12/18/1997 12/18/1997 12/18/1997 12/18/1997 12/19/1997
12/19/1997
12/19/1997
12/24/1997 12/31/1997 01/07/1998

113 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: regarding motion for protective order [109−1]; (See O for details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/17/1997)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Cont Evid Hrg held on 12/17/97 re: mot/certify class actn [100−1]; pties announce jt stipul will be prep−ct directs pties to cont the matter &to rtn at 10:00 a.m. on 12/18/97; pltf req/meet in chambers−ct grnts; hrg held in chambers w/couns only. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/17/1997)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot/certify class action [100−1] hrg held on 12/18/97; pties announce progress is being made−pltf has gvn prop stipul to deft &will have filed by 4:30 p.m. today &anticip will be filed as afdt by 12/24/97; addtl brfing due 1/12/98; resp due from deft 1/26/98 &repl frm pltf due 2/2/98.(G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/18/1997)
114 JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES re [100−1] (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/18/1997)
115 EXHIBITS in opposition to class certification (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/18/1997)
116 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion for leave to file 2nd amended class action complaint [110−1] (cc: mvt counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
117 WITNESS STATEMENTS, EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS FILED PURSUANT TO THE JOINT STIPULATION − VOLUME I by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 12/22/1997 (Entered: 12/22/1997)
118 WITNESS STATEMENTS, EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS FILED PURSUANT TO THE JOINT STIPULATION − VOLUME II by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
119 WITNESS STATEMENTS, EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS FILED PURSUANT TO THE JOINT STIPULATION − VOLUME III by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
120 AFFIDAVITS FILED PURSUANT TO JOINT STIPULATION: affidavits of Walter Busby, Debra Dickens, Roy Johnson, Derrek Lewis, Rufus Newsome, David Olden, and Albert Young re [114−1] (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/24/1997)
TRANSCRIPT of hrg on class certification before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 12/16/97, 12/17/97, 12/18/97 (C/R Glen R. Dorrough; 164 pgs) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/05/1998)
121 JOINT MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to strike settlement conf set for 1/8/98 (O2MJ−SAJ) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/08/1998)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 28 of 115

01/07/1998 01/07/1998 01/09/1998
01/09/1998 01/12/1998 01/20/1998 01/21/1998 01/22/1998 01/23/1998 01/26/1998 02/02/1998 02/09/1998 02/26/1998
03/10/1998 03/10/1998 03/12/1998 03/13/1998 03/13/1998

MINUTE ORDER: referring to Magistrate Sam A. Joyner the motion to strike settlement conf set for 1/8/98 [121−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
122 AFFIDAVIT of Herb Hardman re joint stipulation [114−1] (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/08/1998)
123 MOTION by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson to ext time to file propo finds on class certification(C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/12/1998)
124 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes regarding motion to strike settlement conf set for 1/8/98 [121−1] settlement conference stricken on 1/9/98, to be reset at a later date (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/12/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: granting joint motion for additional time to file proposed findings on class certification [123−1] until 1/19/98 (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/12/1998)
125 MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed pg limit of brf/supp class certification (O2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
126 SUPPLEMENTAL by plaintiffs to motion to exceed pg limit of brf/supp class certification (O2J) [125−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/22/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: granting motion to file brief exceeding twenty−five pages in length in support of class certification [125−1] (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/22/1998)
127 BRIEF by plaintiffs in support of motion to certify class action (C2J) [100−1] (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/26/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: granting Plaintiffs' supplemental motion to file brief exceeding 25 pages in length [126−1] re motion for class certification [100−1] (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/26/1998)
128 RESPONSE (Brief in Opposition) by defendant City of Tulsa of to motion to certify class action [100−1] (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/03/1998)
129 REPLY by plaintiffs to response to motion to certify class action (c2j) [100−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/10/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the PRETRIAL CONF set for 9:30 a.m. on 3/13/98 is stricken. A MOTION HEARING on the motion to certify class action [100−1] is set for 8:30 a.m. on 3/13/98. The TRIAL remains as set at 9:30 a.m. on 4/20/98. This is a trailing trial docket. Trial briefs, proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the exchange of demonstrative exhibits are due 4/13/98. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE is reset for 10:30 a.m. on 4/3/98. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 02/27/1998 (Entered: 02/26/1998)
130 MOTION by plaintiffs for default judgment against Tulsa, City of (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/11/1998)
131 BRIEF by plaintiffs in support of motion for default judgment against Tulsa, City of (C2J) [130−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/11/1998)
132 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to pla's motion for default judgment against Tulsa, City of [130−1] (ksb, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/13/1998)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes taking under advisement on 3/13/98 the motion to certify class action (c2j) [100−1] (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/13/1998)
133 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [97−1], [1−1] by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff D

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 29 of 115

03/16/1998 03/17/1998
03/17/1998
03/20/1998 03/20/1998
03/20/1998 03/23/1998 03/26/1998 04/07/1998 04/09/1998 04/14/1998 04/27/1998 04/30/1998

Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A plaintiff Roy C Johnson (C/SEH−J) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/17/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a SCHEDULING HRG is set for 10:00 a.m. on 3/20/98 before Judge Holmes. (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel &pties phoned by CRD) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/16/1998)
134 NOTICE by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson of change of address of Jean Walpole Coulter to 1638 S. Carson, Ste. 1127, Tulsa, OK 74119 (C/SEH−J) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/1998)
135 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting in part and denying in part motion to certify class action [100−1]; (See O for details); Crt certifies such a class w/respect to claims set forth in 2d amd cmplnt; the class will be certified w/o respect to substantive proof of the allegations; class certification does not establish the fact of any clm set forth in 2nd amd cmplnt; in the event it later appears that class action is not most efficient form of ligiating, Crt may decertify class any that time of divide class through creation of sub−classes; cnsl for Pltfs shall w/i 20 days of file date of this O, file w/clk of crt a form of ntc to members of proposed class, w/suggested means for distributing ntc; Dfdt shall have 15 days to resp to such filings; (cc: all counsel) (ptys phoned &faxed by CRD) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 03/19/1998 (Entered: 03/19/1998)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes ; Status hearing held 3/20/98 ; pltf will withdrw mot/dflt jgm provided deft files mot or ans today; sched ord entered. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/20/1998)
136 SCHEDULING ORDER Judge Sven Erik Holmes: disp motion filing ddl set for 8/10/98; discovery due 7/31/98; proposed pretrial order due 10/23/98 ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 9:30 10/30/98 ; JURY TRIAL set for 9:30 11/16/98; ETT: 15 days. (See ord for frthr ddls)(cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 03/20/1998 (Entered: 03/20/1998)
138 ANSWER by defendant Tulsa, City of to 2d amended class action complaint [133−1] (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/23/1998)
137 ORDER by Magistrate Claire V. Eagan SETTLMT CONF set for 1:30 6/3/98 before Magistrate Claire V. Eagan (cc: all counsel) (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/23/1998)
139 PROPOSED NOTICE by plaintiffs of class action(ctoJ) (ksb, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/27/1998)
140 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to extend time to rply to proposed ntc/class action (o2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: granting motion for extension of time to reply to Plaintiff's proposed notice of class action [140−1] until 4/14/98 (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/09/1998)
141 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by defendant Tulsa, City of to Pltfs' proposed ntc of class action [139−1] (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/15/1998)
142 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time to reply to class ntc response (O2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: granting motion for additional time to reply to class notice response [142−1] until 5/1/98 (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/30/1998)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 30 of 115

05/01/1998 05/12/1998
05/20/1998 05/21/1998 05/21/1998 05/22/1998 05/26/1998
05/26/1998
06/04/1998 06/05/1998 06/08/1998 06/12/1998 06/15/1998 06/18/1998 06/22/1998
06/25/1998
06/29/1998

143 REPLY by plaintiffs in support of their proposed class notice [139−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/04/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: The settlement conference order [docket #137] is modified to provide that only counsel of record are to attend the first settlement meeting on June 3, 1998. Counsel are expected to be prepared to discuss a recommended settlement process, settlement issues and a schedule for additional settlement meetings. (cc: all counsel) (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/12/1998)
144 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time to resp to interr (O/MJFHM) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/21/1998)
145 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to strike stlmt conf and stlmt stmts (C/MJCVE) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
146 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to extend time to resp to interr (C/MJFHM) [144−1] (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: referring to Magistrate Claire V. Eagan the motion to strike stlmt conf and stlmt stmts [145−1] (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: denying motion to strike stlmt conf and stlmt stmts [145−1]; The June 3 session is a preliminary planning session for attorneys only. The status of discovery responses can be addressed at that time. (cc: all counsel) (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/26/1998)
147 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes re Pltfs' proposed ntc of class action filed 3/26/98 [139−1]; Crt orders ptys to confer to develop an agreed proposed ntc; ptys are further ordered to confer re the manner of distribution of ntc; ntc shall be filed w/Crt no later than 6/8/98 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/27/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLMT CONF set for 1:00 on 6/16/98 before Magistrate Claire V. Eagan; counsel and previously designated party representatives to attend. (cc: all counsel) (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/1998)
148 OBJECTION by objector OK Coun Law Enforce to Pltf's subpoena DT (C2MJ−FHM) (mail−no env) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/05/1998)
149 NOTICE of Class Action by defendant City of Tulsa (D/B C/J) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/09/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: setting motion to extend time to resp to interr [144−1] HRG set for 10:30 6/15/98 before Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy in Courtroom #1, third floor. (vbll ntc: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/1998)
MINUTES: by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy finding the motion to extend time to resp to interr [144−1] moot; ptys state interr have been answ. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/15/1998)
150 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to stay expert witness exchange pending determination of applicable statute of limitations (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
151 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes re proposed ntc of class action; Crt finds that the ntc attached to this O as Exhibit A shall be gvn in this matter; ptys should confer to prepare an agreed upon Request for Exclusion form to be included in ntc; ntc shall be provided to all members of class by means agreed to by ptys as soon as practicably and no later than 7/17/98 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/22/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: In order to allow the parties time to engage in settlement discussions, it is hereby ordered that all deadlines in July and August set forth in the scheduling order in this matter are hereby suspended, except for the sending of notice to the class. A new scheduling order will be entered in this matter in September, 1998. Discovery ddl suspended 6/25/98; Motion filing ddl suspended 6/25/98 (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: Add'l settlement meeting with pltf and deft representatives and counsel scheduled for 7/8/98 at 5:30 p.m. Each side to submit a short working

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 31 of 115

07/27/1998 07/27/1998 07/27/1998 07/27/1998 07/27/1998 07/29/1998 07/29/1998
11/03/1998 11/05/1998 11/23/1998 04/14/1999 04/15/1999 05/10/1999 05/12/1999
05/18/1999 05/19/1999 06/16/1999

paper of issues by Monday, 7/6/98 to be delivered to Judge Eagan's chambers and not to be filed. (cc: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/29/1998)
152 SEALED DOCUMENT (redacted version unsealed 11/12/02 per #717 titled: pltfs' report to the Crt on service of class action ntc) (lmc, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 07/28/1998)
153 SEALED DOCUMENT (redacted version unsealed 11/12/02 per #717 titled: request for exclusion) (lmc, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 07/28/1998)
154 SEALED DOCUMENT (redacted version unsealed 11/12/02 per #717 titled: request for exclusion) (lmc, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 07/28/1998)
155 SEALED DOCUMENT (redacted version unsealed 11/12/02 per #717 titled: request for exclusion) (lmc, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 07/28/1998)
156 SEALED DOCUMENT (redacted version unsealed 11/12/02 per #717 titled: request for exclusion) (lmc, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 07/28/1998)
157 MOTION SEALED (unsealed 11/12/02 per #717 titled: emergency mot to seal recs) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 07/30/1998)
158 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to seal document numbers 152, 153, 154, 155 &156 [157−1]; future filings that contain personal information shall be presented to the court clerk for filing under seal (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/30/1998)
159 MOTION by defendant City of Tulsa for status/scheduline hearing (C/J) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a PHONE CONF is set for 11:15 a.m. on 11/6/98 before Judge Holmes. (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing before Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy for date(s) of: 6/15/98 (C/R Glen R. Dorrough; 12 pgs) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/24/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a STATUS HRG is set for 3:00 p.m. on 4/15/99 before Judge Holmes. (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel−Pties phoned by CRD) counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/14/1999)
MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes ; Status hearing held 4/15/99 ; pties to submit agrd upon sched ord by 5/10/99.(G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/16/1999)
160 NOTICE (Proposed Schedule) by defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/12/1999)
161 OBJECTION &RESPONSE by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson to dft's proposed scheduling order [160−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/12/1999)
TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 4/15/99 (C/R Glen R Dorrough) (4 pages) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/19/1999)
162 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of re resp to Tulsa's proposed sched[161−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/19/1999)
163 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for attorney R. Lawrence Ashe, Jr. to appear pro hac vice , and for attorney Nancy E. Rafuse to appear pro hac vice (o2j) (fees

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 32 of 115

06/16/1999 06/21/1999 06/22/1999
07/09/1999 07/13/1999
09/23/1999 09/23/1999 09/28/1999 10/01/1999 10/13/1999 10/25/1999 10/28/1999
10/29/1999
10/29/1999

paid) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/16/1999)
FINANCIAL ENTRY re [163−1]: PHV fee paid for R Lawrence Ashey Jr &nancy E Rafuse in the amt of $100.00; receipt #86601 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/17/1999)
MINUTE ORDER: granting motion for attorneys R. Lawrence Ashe, Jr. [163−1] and Nancy E. Rafuse to appear pro hac vice [163−2] (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (Entry Date 6/21/99) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/21/1999)
MINUTE ORDER: This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Proposed Scheduling Order filed 5/10/99, and Plaintiffs' Objection and Response thereto filed 5/12/99. This matter is hereby referred to United States Magistrate Judge Frank McCarthy for resolution. The Court hereby directs the parties to confer and provide a proposed schedule for Magistrate McCarthy's consideration and approval on or before close of business Friday, 7/2/99. (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel, MJ−FHM) (Entry Date 6/23/99) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/23/1999)
PROPOSED Scheduling Order (forwarded to fhm−mj pursuant to 6/22/99 min ord) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/12/1999)
164 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, the motion filing ddl is set for 2/1/00; discovery due 1/15/00; proposed pretrial due 6/1/00; PRETRIAL CONF set for 9:30 a.m. on 7/21/00; TRIAL set for 8:30 a.m. on 8/21/00 (See Scheduling Order for further deadlines) (SEH−J) (cc: all counsel) (Entry Date 7/14/99) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/14/1999)
165 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for attorney David E. Gevertz to appear pro hac vice (o2j) (fees pd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/23/1999)
FINANCIAL ENTRY re [165−1]: PHV fee paid for David E Gevertz in the amt of $50.00; receipt 88382 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/1999)
166 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting City of Tulsa's motion for attorney David E. Gevertz to appear pro hac vice [165−1] (cc: all counsel) (Entry Date 9/29/99) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/1999)
167 EXPERT REPORT OF DR KATHLEEN K LUNDQUIST by defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/04/1999)
168 MOTION by plaintiffs to clarify , or to amend protective order (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/14/1999)
174 EMERGENCY MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to clarify the parties' 7/13/99 scheduling order (dcap, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/1999)
169 RESPONSE by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to clarify [168−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
170 MOTION by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson to compel prod of docs (c2mj−FHM) (oversized doc) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/1999)
171 MINUTE ORDER: referring to Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy the motion to compel prod of docs (c2mj−FHM) [170−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/1999)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 33 of 115

10/29/1999 10/29/1999 11/01/1999 11/01/1999 11/01/1999 11/01/1999 11/02/1999 11/03/1999 11/03/1999 11/04/1999 11/05/1999
11/05/1999 11/05/1999 11/08/1999
11/15/1999
11/15/1999 11/16/1999

172 CERTIFICATE of Service re Mtn Reply by defendant Tulsa, City of (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/1999)
173 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to emergency mtn for clarifiation of 7/13/99 Sched order (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/1999)
175 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for suppl protective order (c2mj−FHM) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/1999)
176 MINUTE ORDER: referring to Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy the motion for suppl protective order (c2mj−FHM) [175−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/1999)
177 RESPONSE in opposition by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to clarify [168−1], to motion to amend protective order [168−2] &... (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/1999)
177 ...BRIEF by defendant Tulsa, City of in support of motion for suppl protective order (c2mj−FHM) [175−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/1999)
178 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, Defendant's Emergency Motion to Clarify the Scheduling Order [174−1] is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy. (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
179 MOTION by plaintiffs to stay the sealing of depo of Walter Busby and brf in supp (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/04/1999)
180 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy the motion to stay the of depo of Walter Busby and brf in supp [179−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/04/1999)
182 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time to respond to dfdt's 3rd set of interr &1st req/prod docs (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
181 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy setting motion to clarify the parties' 7/13/99 scheduling order [174−1] Tele HRG set for 10:00 11/8/99 before Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy setting motion to stay the sealing of depo of Walter Busby and brf in supp [179−1] Tele HRG set for 10:00 11/8/99 before Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy (vbl: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/1999)
184 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to extend time to respond to dfdt's 3rd set of interr &1st req/prod docs [182−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
185 RESPONSE in Opposition to pltf's Emergency Mtn to Stay Sealing of Depo of W Busby by defendant Tulsa, City of (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
183 MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to stay the sealing of depo of Walter Busby and brf in supp [179−1] depo shall be completed and deponent will have 30 days after completion to read and sign depo; taking under advisement on 11/8/99 the motion to clarify the parties' 7/13/99 scheduling order [174−1] ptys have until close of business 11/15/99 to file agreed amended sched O or each to file a proposed amended sched O. (cc: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
186 BRIEF by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson in support of sched order proposed [0−0] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/15/1999)
187 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to file proposed modified sched order (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
188 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to compel prod of docs [170−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/17/1999)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 34 of 115

11/29/1999 11/30/1999
11/30/1999 12/08/1999 12/10/1999 02/02/2000 02/04/2000 02/04/2000 02/07/2000
02/11/2000
02/14/2000 02/18/2000 03/07/2000

189 LETTER from Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &Walker LLP re pltfs' appl for ext of time to ext disc (c/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/30/1999)
190 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, re motion to clarify the parties' 7/13/99 scheduling order [174−1]; Modified Scheduling Order: discovery ddl reset for 6/30/00; motion filing ddl reset for 7/14/00; pretrial order ddl reset for 10/13/00; PRETRIAL CONF reset for 9:30 a.m. on 11/3/00; TRIAL set for 9:30 a.m. on 11/13/00 (See O for further ddls) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/01/1999)
191 ORDER by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy granting pltfs' motion to extend time to respond to dfdt's 3rd set of interr &1st req/prod docs until 12/8/99 [182−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/01/1999)
PROPOSED Stip to Ext Ddln for Pltfs' Disc Resps submitted by parties (forwarded to seh−j) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 12/10/1999 (Entered: 12/10/1999)
192 ORDER (STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES) by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy, that the time for Pltfs to srv resp to 3rd set of interr and 1st set of req for prod is extended through and including 12/17/99 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/14/1999)
193 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes. Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify or Amend Protective Order [168−2] is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Frank McCarthy, in accordance with his jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/03/2000)
194 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for attorney Rebecca D. Farber to appear pro hac vice (o2j) (fees pd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/04/2000)
FINANCIAL ENTRY re [194−1]: PHV fee paid for Rebecca D Farber in the amt of $50.00; receipt #90596 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/10/2000)
195 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy setting motion to clarify [168−1] HRG set for 9:30 2/11/00 before Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy, setting motion to amend protective order [168−2] HRG set for 9:30 2/11/00 before Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy setting motion to compel prod of docs [170−1] HRG set for 9:30 2/11/00 before Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy setting motion for suppl protective order [175−1] HRG set for 9:30 before Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy in Courtroom #2, 3rd floor. (cc: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
196 MINUTES: by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy taking under advisement on 2/11/00 the motion to clarify [168−1], taking under advisement on 2/11/00 the motion to amend protective order [168−2] taking under advisement on 2/11/00 the motion to compel prod of docs [170−1] taking under advisement on 2/11/00 the motion for suppl protective order [175−1] court will issue written Order. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/11/2000)
197 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion for attorney Rebecca D. Farber to appear pro hac vice on behalf of dfdt, City of Tulsa [194−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/14/2000)
198 ORDER by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy denying pltf's motion to clarify [168−1] or to amend protective order [168−2]; granting dfdt's motion for suppl protective order [175−1]; granting in part and denying in part pltf's motion to compel prod of docs [170−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
PROPOSED Suppl Pre−trial Order Received from plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A defendant Tulsa, City of, plaintiff Roy C Johnson (o2j) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/07/2000)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 35 of 115

03/07/2000
03/09/2000 03/10/2000 03/10/2000 03/10/2000 03/10/2000 03/13/2000
03/13/2000
03/22/2000 03/24/2000 03/27/2000
03/31/2000 04/05/2000 04/06/2000
04/12/2000

199 APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE'S ORDER [198−1] (c2j &mj) by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/07/2000)
200 SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy: (See ord for details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/10/2000)
201 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to compel (c2mj−FHM) (fe, Dpty Clk) Modified on 03/10/2000 (Entered: 03/10/2000)
202 MINUTE ORDER: referring to Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy the motion to compel (c2mj−FHM) [201−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/10/2000)
203 BRIEF by defendant Tulsa, City of in support of motion to compel (c2mj−FHM) [201−1] (oversized doc) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/10/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy for date(s) of: 2/11/00 (C/R Terri Copeland) (37 pages) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
204 MOTION by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Nancy E Reed, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson to extend sched order (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
237 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Scheduling Order [204−1]. The trial date for the instant case is hereby stricken. The parties are ordered to submit an agreed upon revised schedule by September 15, 2000. (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
205 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to dfdt's motion to compel [201−1] (ksb, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/22/2000)
206 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by defendant Tulsa, City of to plfs' appeal from Magistrate Judge's ruling [199−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
207 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Motion Hearing on the Motion to extend scheduling order [204−1] and the APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE'S ORDER [198−1] [199−1] is set for 11:00 a.m. on 4/6/00 (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 03/28/2000 (Entered: 03/27/2000)
208 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to pltfs' motion to extend sched order [204−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
209 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion to compel [201−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
210 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: CASE CALLED FOR HRG ON mo/extend sched order [204−1] and appeal motion APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE'S ORDER [198−1] [199−1]. Pltf to submit in camera documents for Ct's review. Pltf to submit req. re documents being released to Justice Dept. by 4/24/00. Statements made re mo/ext schedo in regard to production of documents &entry of Protective Orders. Hrg contd to 4/13/00, 9 a.m. Parties are to be prepared to advise Ct re compilation of statistics.[G.Dorrough−cr] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/06/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 4/6/00 (C/R Glen R Dorrough) (41 pages) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/12/2000)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 36 of 115

04/12/2000 04/13/2000 04/13/2000
04/17/2000 04/18/2000
04/24/2000 04/25/2000 04/27/2000
05/01/2000 05/01/2000 05/01/2000 05/01/2000 05/01/2000 05/11/2000 05/11/2000 05/12/2000
05/12/2000 05/12/2000

212 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by defendant Tulsa, City of (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
211 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy setting motion to compel [201−1] HRG set for 1:30 5/2/00 before Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy in courtroom #2, 3rd floor. (cc: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
213 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 4/13/00; stmts made by pties re: compilation of stats; deft to prod to pltf field intervw rpts, arrest rpts, etc; and status summ to ct &pties of 5/99; matter cont to 1:15 4/18/00 &deft to come w/info to ct. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of Status Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 4/13/00 (C/R Glen R Dorrough) (63 pages) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/17/2000)
214 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes Status Hrg held on 4/18/00 , stmts made to the ct re: filed intervw rpts, arrest rpts, etc. by the pties; hrg cont to set for 4:00 4/27/00 &pties to finalize this 1st step &provide a jt proposal on how to schedule this case to the ct.(G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/19/2000)
215 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time to submit docs (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/25/2000)
216 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting pltfs' motion to extend time to submit docs to 5/8/00 [215−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/25/2000)
217 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes ; Status hearing held 4/27/00 , pltf's couns rpts to ct deft's proposal of what &when can be submitted to pltf has been agrd to &ltr as to such submitted to ct; next STATUS HRG set for 1:30 7/7/00 (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/01/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of In−Court Hearing before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 4/18/00 (C/R Glen R Dorrough) (16 pages) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/01/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 4/27/00 (C/R Glen R Dorrough) (12 pages) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/01/2000)
218 NOTICE OF OBJECTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to pltfs' req to resched 5/2/00 mot to comp hrg (no such mot on file) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/01/2000)
219 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend disc hrg date until 5/15/00 (o/fhm−mj) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2000)
220 ORDER by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy granting pltfs' motion to extend disc hrg date until 5/15/00 [219−1]; setting hearing on motion to compel [201−1] 9:30 5/15/00 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2000)
221 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for telephonic hearing on 5/15/00 (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/11/2000)
222 NOTICE of supplemental authority in support of its mtn to comp by defendant Tulsa, City of (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/11/2000)
223 RESPONSE by plaintiffs Albert L Young, Gary L Pitts, Cornelius D Finley, Ray D Nelson, Derrek L Lewis, Walter E Busby Jr, Marvin Blades, Tyrone D Lynn, Rufus E Newsome, Tammara McKinney−Olden, Nancy E Reed, Debra D Dickens, Debbie R Crisp, Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, Paula D Anderson, Steven L Gibbs, Dwight E Jackson, Mark A Moore, Roy C Johnson to motion for telephonic hearing on 5/15/00 [221−1] (C/MJ−FHM) (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/12/2000)
224 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy granting motion for telephonic hearing on 5/15/00 [221−1]; pltf may appear in person; defendants will appear by phone. (vbl: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/12/2000)
225 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy the motion for telephonic hearing on 5/15/00 [221−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/12/2000)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 37 of 115

05/15/2000
05/25/2000 07/06/2000 07/07/2000
07/12/2000 07/13/2000
07/31/2000 07/31/2000 08/23/2000 08/25/2000 08/25/2000 08/25/2000 08/25/2000 09/07/2000 09/15/2000 09/18/2000 09/26/2000
11/03/2000 11/06/2000

226 MINUTES: by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy; hrg called; defts app by telephone; pltf app in person; taking under advisement on 5/15/00 the motion to compel [201−1]; pltf w/in 2 wks will resp in writing 2/a statement stating they have prod all doc in their possession responsive; remainder of issues are taken u/adv. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/15/2000)
227 ORDER by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy granting in part and denying in part the motion to compel [201−1]; all resps are due w/i 30 days of the date of this ord (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)
228 NOTICE (SUBMISSION CONCERNING THE 5/99 DATA SAMPLE) by plaintiffs (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/06/2000)
229 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Status hearing held on 7/7/00 , ct affirms MJ's ruling that the prod/docs are unnec; stmts made re: 5/99 data samples − STATUS HRG cont to noon on 7/13/00 −pties may appear by phone. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
230 POST−HRG BRIEF FILED by defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
231 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes ; Status hearing held 7/13/00 ; status gvn by the pties; ct directs City of Tulsa to bear costs at this time &then submit costs to ct for review; ct will conduct a hrg at the end of the summer. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/13/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conf before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 7/13/00 (C/R Glen R Dorrough, 5 pages) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/01/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of Status Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 7/7/00 (C/R Glen R Dorrough, 50 pages) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/01/2000)
232 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the NJ TRIAL set for 9:30 a.m. on 11/13/00 is passed and reset for 9:30 a.m. on 11/27/00 . (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/23/2000)
233 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for contempt (c/mj−FHM) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/25/2000)
234 MINUTE ORDER: referring to Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy the motion for contempt (c/mj−FHM) [233−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/25/2000)
235 BRIEF (memorandum of law) by defendant Tulsa, City of in support of motion for contempt (c/mj−FHM) [233−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/25/2000)
236 EXHIBITS of City of Tulsa's memo of law in support of mtn contempt (oversized doc) (fe, Dpty Clk) Modified on 08/25/2000 (Entered: 08/25/2000)
238 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion for contempt [233−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/07/2000)
PROPOSED Agree Scheduling Order (forwarded to seh−j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
239 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion for contempt [233−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
240 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes ; motion filing ddl set for 5/1/01 ; discovery due 4/2/01 ; proposed pretrial order due 9/15/01 ; SUMMARY JUDGMENT HRG set for 10:30 7/13/01 ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 10:30 9/28/01 ; TRIAL set for 9:30 10/15/01 (see sched ord for further ddlns) (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2000)
241 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for protective order limiting pltfs' excess interrogs (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
242 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy the motion for protective order limiting pltfs' excess interrogs [241−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/06/2000)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 38 of 115

11/06/2000 11/06/2000 11/20/2000 11/20/2000 11/20/2000 12/01/2000 12/01/2000 12/12/2000 12/18/2000 12/22/2000 12/29/2000 12/29/2000 12/29/2000 01/04/2001 01/05/2001 01/09/2001
01/09/2001
01/09/2001 01/11/2001

243 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Michael Joseph Lissau (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
244 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy the motion for protective order limiting pltfs' excess interrogs [241−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/07/2000)
245 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel discovery (oversized doc)... (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/21/2000)
245 ...RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion for protective order limiting pltfs' excess [241−1] (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/21/2000)
246 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy the motion to compel [245−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/21/2000)
247 EXPERT WITNESS Report/list by plaintiffs (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/04/2000)
248 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion for protective order limiting pltfs' excess interrogs [241−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/04/2000)
249 MOTION by pltfs for disc status hearing (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/13/2000)
250 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy setting motion for disc status hearing [249−1] HRG set for 9:30 1/9/01 before Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy in courtroom #2, 3rd floor. (cc: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
251 MOTION by plaintiffs for emergency protective order (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/26/2000)
252 NOTICE of Suppl issues to be addressed during 1/9/01 disc conf by defendant Tulsa, City of (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/02/2001)
253 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion for emergency protective order [251−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/02/2001)
254 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to extend time to file its expert reports (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/02/2001)
255 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Motion Hearing on the Motion to extend time to file its expert reports [254−1] is set for 8:30 a.m. on 1/9/01. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
256 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to extend time to file its expert reports [254−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/08/2001)
257 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes Mot Hrg on Mot/tm to file its expert reports [254−1] held on 1/9/01; stmts made by pties; ct refers matter to MJ Frank H. McCarthy; timeline of expert dates &declar of Hossein Borhani prov to ct by defts; orig declar cmg by Fed Ex to be filed of record. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/09/2001)
258 MINUTES: by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy; Hearing held; Disclosure provision of Amend to R.26 by agreement will not apply to this litgation; taking under advisement on 1/9/01 the motion for contempt [233−1] taking under advisement on 1/9/01 the motion for protective order limiting pltfs' excess interrogs [241−1] taking under advisement on 1/9/01 the motion to compel discovery [245−1] finding the motion for emergency protective order [251−1] moot. taking under advisement on 1/9/01 the motion to extend time to file its expert reports [254−1]; Ct finds that depos shall be limited to 9 hrs; Lewis depo to be completed after hrg today w/ Blades depo to begin thereafter. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/09/2001)
259 DECLARATION of Hossein Borhani (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/10/2001)
260 ORDER by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to extend time to file its expert reports [254−1] to the extent that the City is permitted to file its expert repts by 1/31/01. However, filing of the expert reports is not contingent upon any further production of info by pltfs. [See Order for details] (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/11/2001)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 39 of 115

01/11/2001 01/17/2001
01/22/2001 01/23/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001
01/30/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001
01/31/2001 02/01/2001
02/06/2001 02/13/2001 02/21/2001 02/21/2001 03/01/2001 03/01/2001 03/07/2001
03/07/2001 03/12/2001 03/15/2001

261 NOTICE by defendant Tulsa, City of of previous judicial proceeding (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/12/2001)
262 ORDER by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy that dfdt's mot for protective ord [241−1] and pltfs' mot to compel [245−1] remain under consideration pending the parties' compliance with this ord (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/18/2001)
TRANSCRIPT of In Court Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 1/9/01 (C/R Glen R Dorrough, 24 pages) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/22/2001)
263 ORDER by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy denying motion for contempt [233−1] (See ord for details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
264 MOTION by plaintiff Nancy E Reed to extend time to suppl disc (o/mj−FHM) &brf in support (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
265 MINUTE ORDER: referring to Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy the motion to extend time to suppl disc (o/mj−FHM) [264−1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
FINANCIAL ENTRY re [266−1]: PHV fee paid for William F Kaspers in the amt of $50.00; receipt #95688 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/05/2001)
266 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for attorney William F Kaspers to appear pro hac vice (o/j) (fees pd) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
267 ORDER by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to extend time to suppl disc resps or file a mot to be dism as class representative [264−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/01/2001)
268 NOTICE by defendant Tulsa, City of of expert witness reports (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/01/2001)
269 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion for attorney William F Kaspers to appear pro hac vice [266−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
270 NOTICE (REVIEW AND JUSTIFICATION OF OUTSTANDING INTERROGATORIES) by plaintiffs (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
271 MOTION w/brf by plaintiffs to dismiss clms of Nancy Reed &excuse her from ans further disc (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 02/14/2001 (Entered: 02/14/2001)
272 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to [262−1] ct's order/1−16−1 and interrogs (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/22/2001)
273 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to [262−1] ct's order/1−16−1 and interrogs of 9/1/00 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/22/2001)
274 PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT list by plaintiffs (oversized doc) (fe, Dpty Clk) Modified on 03/02/2001 (Entered: 03/02/2001)
275 PRELIMINARY WITNESS list by plaintiffs (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/02/2001)
276 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to dismiss clms of Nancy Reed &excuse her from ans further disc [271−1]; dismissing party Nancy E Reed (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
277 CERTIFICATE by defendant Tulsa, City of of svc (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy for date(s) of: 1/9/01 (C/R Terri Copeland, 64 pages) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/13/2001)
278 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson,

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 40 of 115

03/16/2001
03/26/2001
03/28/2001 03/30/2001 03/30/2001 04/04/2001 04/09/2001 04/10/2001 04/18/2001 04/19/2001
04/24/2001 04/24/2001 04/25/2001 04/26/2001 05/15/2001 05/21/2001 05/25/2001 05/25/2001

plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, defendant Tulsa, City of, plaintiff Roy C Johnson to amend sched ord to allow completion of disc (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/15/2001)
279 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to amend sched ord to allow completion of disc [278−1]; a new sched ord w/ddls in accordance w/the Crt's current calendar will be coming forthwith (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/19/2001)
280 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, motion filing ddl set for 9/28/01; discovery due 8/1/01; proposed pretrial order due 12/28/01; SUMMARY JUDGMENT HRG set for 11:30 a.m. on 11/2/01; PRETRIAL CONF set for 1:30 p.m. on 1/4/02; TRIAL set for 8:30 a.m. on 1/22/02 (see sched ord for further ddlns) (cc: all cnsl) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/26/2001)
281 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to withdraw attorney Paul F Prather (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/28/2001)
282 ORDER by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy granting motion for protective order limiting pltfs' excess interrogs [241−1] denying motion to compel discovery [245−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/02/2001)
283 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to withdraw attorney Paul F Prather [281−1] for Tulsa, City of (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/02/2001)
284 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff Paula D Anderson to dismiss her as a named pltf (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/04/2001)
285 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to dismiss her as a named pltf [284−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
PROPOSED Order re: motion to dismiss her as a named pltf [284−1] forwarded to: seh−j (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
286 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to dismiss as a named pltf [284−1] party Paula D Anderson but maintain her as a named class member (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
287 MINUTES: by Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy; exp tele hrg held re disc dispute during depo of Chief Palmer. After discussing issue ptys directed to file written mots if matter not resolved by the ptys. (ct rptr for depo present) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
288 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs and defendant to change brfg sched on City's mot for protective ord (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/25/2001)
289 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to change brfg sched on City's mot for protective ord [288−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/25/2001)
290 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to change brfg sched on City's mot for protective ord [288−1] (cc: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/25/2001)
291 JOINT NOTICE OF AGREEMENT by plaintiffs and dfdt (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/27/2001)
292 MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy exp tele hrg re depo dispute held; court reporter present. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/16/2001)
293 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendant Tulsa, City of re amd ntc of continuing depo of pltf Walter Busby (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
294 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for disc status conf (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/25/2001)
295 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion for disc status conf [294−1] (crp, Dpty Clk)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 41 of 115

05/25/2001 05/25/2001 05/30/2001
05/30/2001 05/30/2001
05/31/2001 06/05/2001 06/05/2001 06/06/2001 06/07/2001
06/07/2001 06/07/2001
06/07/2001 06/08/2001

(Entered: 05/25/2001)
296 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to amend exp witn exchg and exp rpt ddls in 3/23/01 sched ord (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/25/2001)
297 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendant Tulsa, City of re mot to amd exp witn exchg and exp rpt ddls in 3/23/01 sched ord (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/25/2001)
298 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes. This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant's Motion to Amend Expert Witness Exchange, filed May 25, 2001 [296−1]. The Court hereby orders that, should either party wish to amend its expert reports, a motion to amend as well as a copy of the proposed amendment shall be filed with this Court no later than June 6, 2001. Objections to the proposed amendments shall be filed no later than June 13, 2001. If after reviewing the filings the Court determines that a hearing is necessary, an expedited hearing will be scheduled. (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/31/2001)
299 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to amend its ans to pltfs' 2nd amd cmplt (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/31/2001)
301 RESPONSE by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson to mot for disc status and mot to amd sched ord [296−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/31/2001)
300 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy finding the motion for disc status conf [294−1] moot as stated by parties. (cc: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/31/2001)
302 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend ddln for exp report amdmnts until 7/1/01 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/05/2001)
303 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of re [296−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/05/2001)
304 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Motion Hrg is set for 11:00 a.m. on 6/7/01 on scheduling issues. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
305 MOTION by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson to withdraw attorney Michele T Gehres (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
PROPOSED Order forwarded to: Judge (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
306 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 6/7/01; argmts heard on deft's mot/amnd its answ to pltfs' 2nd AC [#299] &pltfs' mot/ext ddl for expert rpt amndmts until 7/1/01 [#302]−pltf to prov deft w/any and all materials whch have been prov to Dr. Ayers suppting any amndmt by 6/11/01; deft reserve rgt to respnd to pltfs amnding Dr. Ayer's expert rpt; deft's mot/amnd held in abeyance; actual expert rpt due 7/1/01; disc cutoff 8/1/01; by close of bus on 6/11/01 pltf to prov deft w/amnded witn list (names, addresses &phone numbers); Dr. Ayers to be deposed during last 2 wks of July 2001; pties to prov agrd upon prop ord consistent w/today's rulings signed by pties by 2:30 p.m. on 6/7/01. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/08/2001)
PROPOSED Order forwarded to: Judge (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/08/2001)
PROPOSED Order forwarded to: Judge (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/08/2001)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 42 of 115

06/08/2001 06/11/2001 06/12/2001 06/12/2001 06/12/2001 06/12/2001
06/14/2001 06/18/2001
06/19/2001 06/21/2001 06/21/2001 06/22/2001 07/02/2001 07/02/2001

310 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes re docs provided to Dr. Ian Ayers (see ord for details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/2001)
307 MOTION by plaintiffs to change ddln to resp to mot to amd ans (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/11/2001)
308 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting plaintiffs' motion to extend time until 6/18/01 [307−1] to respond to defendant's motion for leave to amend its answer [299−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/2001)
TRANSCRIPT of Conf before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 6/7/01 (C/R Glen R Dorrough, 26 pages) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/2001)
309 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, (See ord for details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/2001)
311 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to withdraw attorney Michele T Gehres [305−1] attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Roy C Johnson, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Mark A Moore, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Dwight E Jackson, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Steven L Gibbs, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Debbie R Crisp, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Debra D Dickens, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Tammara McKinney−Olden, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Rufus E Newsome, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Tyrone D Lynn, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Marvin Blades, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Walter E Busby Jr, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Derrek L Lewis, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Ray D Nelson, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Cornelius D Finley, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Gary L Pitts, attorney Michele Ticknor Gehres for Albert L Young (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
312 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court order [Document #309] filed and entered on 6/12/01 is vacated. A copy of the vacated order is attached to this minute order as an exhibit for clarification purposes only. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/14/2001)
313 RESPONSE by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Paula D Anderson, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson to motion to amend its ans to pltfs' 2nd amd cmplt [299−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
314 MOTION w/brf by defendant Tulsa, City of to disallow amd to Dr Ayres' rpt based upon docs identified by pltfs (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/20/2001)
315 MOTION by plaintiffs to quash depo ntcs of class members (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/21/2001)
316 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to quash depo ntcs of class members [315−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/21/2001)
317 MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER: Exp hrg held by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to quash depo ntcs of class members [315−1]; pltf to have officers avail. end of next week. (cc: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/22/2001)
TRANSCRIPT of motion hrg before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy for date(s) of: 6/22/01 (C/R Glen R Dorrough; 33 pgs) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
318 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF DR IAN AYRES by plaintiffs (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/02/2001)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 43 of 115

07/03/2001 07/05/2001 07/10/2001 07/10/2001 07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/16/2001 07/17/2001
07/19/2001 07/19/2001 07/19/2001 07/19/2001 07/19/2001 07/19/2001 07/19/2001 07/19/2001 07/24/2001

319 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to disallow amd to Dr Ayres' rpt based upon docs identified by pltfs [314−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/05/2001)
320 NOTICE (FILING OF ORGINAL OF SUPPL RPT OF DR IAN AYRES) by plaintiffs (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/05/2001)
321 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting Defendant's motion to amend its answer to Plaintiffs' 2nd amended complaint [299−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
322 RETURN OF SERVICE of subp (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
323 RETURN OF SERVICE−executed on 7/11/01 by defendant Tulsa, City of of subpoena upon George McCutchen (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
324 RETURN OF SERVICE−executed on 7/10/01 by defendant Tulsa, City of of subpoena upon Robert McQuarters Jr (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
325 RETURN OF SERVICE−executed on 7/10/01 by defendant Tulsa, City of of subpoena on Michael Holmes (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
326 RETURN OF SERVICE−executed on 7/10/01 by defendant Tulsa, City of of subpoena upon Demelda Newsome (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
327 RETURN OF SERVICE−executed on 7/10/01 by defendant Tulsa, City of of subpoena upon Huey Lynn (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
328 REPLY BRIEF by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion to disallow amd to Dr Ayres' rpt based upon docs identified by pltfs [314−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
329 MOTION by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Gary L Pitts, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Ray D Nelson, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Tyrone D Lynn, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Tammara McKinney−Olden, plaintiff Debra D Dickens, plaintiff Debbie R Crisp, plaintiff Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, plaintiff Steven L Gibbs, plaintiff Dwight E Jackson, plaintiff Mark A Moore, plaintiff Roy C Johnson for status conference (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
330 MOTION by unknown Kansas City PD to quash subpoena (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
331 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to quash subpoena [330−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
332 BRIEF (SUGGESTIONS) by unknown Kansas City PD in support of motion to quash subpoena [330−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
333 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion for status conference [329−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
334 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to compel (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
335 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to compel [334−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
336 MOTION by plaintiffs to quash subp duces tecum re financial records of Tulsa Black Officers Coalition (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
337 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to quash subp duces tecum re financial records of Tulsa Black Officers Coalition [336−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
PROPOSED Consent Order re depo of Dr Ian Ayres: forwarded to: fhm−mj (no judge signature line) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/25/2001)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 44 of 115

07/24/2001 07/24/2001 07/25/2001 07/25/2001 07/26/2001 07/26/2001
07/27/2001 07/30/2001 07/30/2001 07/30/2001 07/30/2001 07/31/2001 07/31/2001 08/01/2001 08/01/2001 08/01/2001 08/02/2001
08/02/2001

338 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to quash subps (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/25/2001)
339 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to quash subps [338−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/25/2001)
340 EXHIBIT A attchmt to dfdt's mot for contempt of court &mot to compel witness or in the alternative mot to str witness from pltfs' wit list (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
341 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for contempt , and to compel witness , or in the alternative to strike witness from ptlfs' wit lst (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
342 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of, plaintiff All Plaintiffs re: depo/Dr Ian Ayres (o2mj) (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 07/27/2001 (Entered: 07/27/2001)
344 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Disallow Any Amendment to Dr. Ayres' Report, filed June 19, 2001 [314−1] and Plaintiffs' Motion for Status Conference, filed July 17, 2001 [329−1]. The Court hereby orders a hearing regarding Defendant's Motion to Disallow Any Amendment to Dr. Ayres' Report on August 14, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. At that time, the Court will address Plaintiffs' Motion for Status Conference, but will not address the substantive issues that the motion raises until a determination is made that judicial injury into such issues is proper. (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/27/2001)
343 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion re: depo/Dr Ian Ayres (o2mj) [342−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/27/2001)
345 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to quash subp duces tecum re financial records of Tulsa Black Officers Coalition [336−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
346 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion re: depo/Dr Ian Ayres [342−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
347 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for movant Lewis Jr Barber by James Goodwin (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
348 MOTION by movant Lewis Jr Barber to quash subp/depo (o2j) and brf/spprt (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
349 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to quash subp/depo (o2j) [348−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
350 NOTICE by defendant Tulsa, City of, All Plaintiffs (CONSENT ORDER REGARDING THE DEPOSITION OF DR IAN AYRES)(filed as ntc per j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
REMARK 7/26/01 min ord #58 mailed to all parties this date (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
351 JOINT MOTION by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to extend ddln to depose pltfs' witness Tameka Daniels (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
352 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to extend ddln to depose Greg Robinson until mid−August (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
353 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes setting motion to disallow amd to Dr Ayres' rpt based upon docs identified by pltfs [314−1] HRG set for 9:00 8/16/01, setting motion for status conference [329−1] HRG set for 9:00 8/16/01 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
354 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy setting motion to quash subp/depo [348−1] HRG set for 10:00 8/14/01 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, setting motion to quash subp duces tecum re financial records

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 45 of 115

08/08/2001 08/08/2001
08/10/2001
08/10/2001
08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/14/2001 08/14/2001 08/16/2001
08/16/2001
08/16/2001

of Tulsa Black Officers Coalition [336−1] HRG set for 10:00 8/14/01 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
355 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy setting motions to quash subp/depo [348−1] [336−1]; HRG set for 10:30 8/16/01 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/08/2001)
356 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Contempt and to Compel [341−1] [341−2], filed July 25, 2001. This motion is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Frank McCarthy in accordance with his jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/09/2001)
357 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, the Joint Motion of parties to Extend Time to Depose Pltfs' witness Tameka Daniels [351−1] is hereby GRANTED. Parties are granted until 8/16/01 to locate Ms. Daniels and make her available for deposition in this country prior to the 8/16/01 date (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
358 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, this matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike Witness, filed 7/25/01 341 . This motion is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Frank McCarthy in accordance with his jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
359 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion to quash subps [338−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
360 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion to compel [334−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
361 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion for contempt [341−1], motion to compel witness [341−2], motion to strike witness from ptlfs' wit lst [341−3] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
362 MOTION by unknown Kansas City PD to allow non−party to participate in hrg by telepone (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
363 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to allow non−party to participate in hrg by telepone [362−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
REMARK ptys telephoned re hearing sched for 8/16/01; non−party may appear by telephone and hrg will be conducted in conf room. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
364 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to quash subp/depo [348−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
365 MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy finding the motion to quash subpoena [330−1] moot &mot is wd.; finding the motion to quash subps [338−1] moot &mot wd;. taking under advisement on 8/16/01 the motion to compel [334−1] and letter is to be prov to Mag in−camera; taking under on 8/16/01 the motion to quash subp duces tecum re records of Tulsa Black Officers Coalition [336−1] finding the motion for contempt [341−1] moot., finding the motion to compel witness [341−2] moot., finding the motion to strike witness from ptlfs' wit lst [341−3] moot; 348 to be further briefed. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
366 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 8/16/01; argmts heard on mot/stat conf 329 and mot/disallow amnd to Dr. Ayres' rpt 314 −ct ord Dr. Ayres will sit for another day of depos w/n 30 days−pties ord to sit w/MJ McCarthy and to prep a prop agrd upon sched ord on or bfr 8/27/01. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
367 AMENDED ANSWER [138−1] by defendant Tulsa, City of to 2nd amd class cmplnt (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/17/2001)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 46 of 115

08/20/2001 08/20/2001 08/21/2001 08/21/2001 08/21/2001
08/21/2001 08/21/2001 08/21/2001 08/21/2001 08/21/2001 08/22/2001 08/22/2001 08/22/2001
08/22/2001 08/22/2001 08/22/2001 08/22/2001
08/22/2001

PROPOSED Joint Amended Scheduling Order re: forwarded to: Judge (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
368 MOTION by plaintiffs for order requiring dfdt to show cause (o/j) why it should not be held in contempt of Crt's sched ord (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 08/21/2001 (Entered: 08/20/2001)
369 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy denying motion to compel [334−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
370 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting in part &denying in part motion to quash subp duces tecum re financial records of Tulsa Black Officers Coalition [336−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
371 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Requiring Defendant to Show Cause [368−1]. This motion is hereby referred to Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy in accordance with his jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
372 AMENDED RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to quash subp/depo [348−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
373 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion for order requiring dfdt to show cause why it should not be held in contempt of Crt's sched ord [368−1] ... (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
373 ...MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to strike Tameka Daniels as a witness (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
374 MOTION by movant Lewis Jr Barber to change time until 9/4/01 to rply to City of Tulsa's resp to mot to quash (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
375 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to change time until 9/4/01 to rply to City of Tulsa's resp to mot to quash [374−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
376 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, granting motion to extend time until 9/4/01 [374−1] to rply to City of Tulsa's resp to mot to quash [348−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
REMARK: sealed documents related to deft's mot 334 and the Ct's O. 369 in brown envelope in sealed room. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
377 JOINT AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes ; motion filing ddl set for 12/14/01 ; proposed pretrial order due 3/29/02 ; SUMMARY JUDGMENT HRG set for 10:30 2/1/02 ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 1:30 4/5/02 ; TRIAL set for 8:30 4/15/02 (see sched ord for further ddlns) (cc: all cnsl) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/23/2001)
378 REPLY by plaintiffs to response to motion for order requiring dfdt to show cause why it should not be held in contempt of Crt's sched ord [368−1]... (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/23/2001)
378 ...RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to strike Tameka Daniels as a witness [373−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/23/2001)
379 MOTION by Sergeant Luke Sherman to be dism as class action pltf (not a named pty to case) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 08/27/2001 (Entered: 08/24/2001)
382 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, re docs submitted by pltfs' cnsl for incamera review re dfdt's mot to compel [334−1]; the Crt finds the docs should be under seal; the Crt Clk is directed to maintain docs under seal w/docket entry that the docs are related to dfdt's mot [334−1] and Crt's ord [369−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
IN CAMERA SUBMISSION by plaintiffs' cnsl re dfdt's mot [334−1] and Crt's ord [369−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 08/24/2001 (Entered: 08/24/2001)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 47 of 115

08/23/2001 08/23/2001 08/23/2001 08/23/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/27/2001 08/27/2001
08/29/2001 08/29/2001
08/29/2001 08/31/2001 08/31/2001 09/06/2001 09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/12/2001

TRANSCRIPT of motions hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 8/16/01 (C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 52 ) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
TRANSCRIPT of motion hrg before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy for date(s) of: 8/16/01 (C/R: Terri Copeland, Pages: 29 ) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
380 MOTION by unknown Greg Robinson to quash subpoena (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
381 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to quash subpoena [380−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
383 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to be dism as class action pltf [379−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
384 NOTICE OF SUPPORT FOR CLASS MEMBER LUKE SHERMAN'S REQUEST TO OPT OUT by defendant Tulsa, City of (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
385 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to quash subpoena [380−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
386 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Extend Deadline to Depose Greg Robinson, filed August 1, 2001 [352−1] and Defendant's Motion to Strike Tameka Daniels as a Witness (contained in Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Requiring Defendant to Show Cause), filed August 21, 2001 [373−1]. These motions are hereby referred to Magistrate Frank H. McCarthy in accordance with his jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/28/2001)
387 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to w/d Rule 26 rpts of pltfs' experts Shenoy &Imwalle (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
388 JOINT MOTION by unknown Greg Robinson, movant Lewis Jr Barber, plaintiff All Plaintiffs, unknown Kansas City PD, objector OK Coun Law Enforce, defendant Tulsa, City of to strike exp rpt ddln from sched ord (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
389 LETTER from unknown Kansas City PD to be removed from mailing list (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
390 APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE'S ORDER [369−1] by defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
391 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion to strike Tameka Daniels as a witness [373−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
392 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to strike exp rpt ddln from sched ord [388−1] [377−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
393 MOTION by movant Lewis Jr Barber for leave to file out of time rply to m/quash depo (o(crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
394 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion for leave to file out of time rply to m/quash depo [393−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
395 AFFIDAVIT of Lewis Barber Jr re [393−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
396 MOTION (FILED UNDER SEAL) (oversized doc) (redacted version unsealed 11/12/02 per #717 titled: mot of pltf Class to reconsider the Crt's ord of 8/24/01 and brf in supp) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 09/10/2001)
397 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion for leave to file out of time rply to m/quash depo [393−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/12/2001)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 48 of 115

09/12/2001 09/20/2001 09/20/2001
09/21/2001 09/24/2001 09/24/2001 09/24/2001 09/24/2001 09/25/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001
09/26/2001 09/27/2001
10/05/2001 10/05/2001

398 REPLY by movant Lewis Jr Barber to response to motion to quash subp/depo [348−1] (file−stamped cpys rtrnd to mvt's cnsl) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/12/2001)
399 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes overruling APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE'S ORDER [369−1] [390−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/21/2001)
400 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, inasmuch as Plaintiffs have unilaterally withdrawn these individuals as witnesses from this case, Defendant(s) MOTION TO WITHDRAW RULE 26 REPORTS OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERTS SHENOY AND IMWALLE [387−1] is granted. (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/21/2001)
401 MOTION by plaintiffs to file a resp brf out of time to obj to (omagistrate's 8/21/01 disc ord (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
402 RENEWED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to strike Dr Ayres' July 2001 suppl expert rpt (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
403 BRIEF by defendant Tulsa, City of in support of motion to strike Dr Ayres' July 2001 suppl expert rpt [402−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
404 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Tulsa, City of by Martha Rupp Carter (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
405 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to mot for reconsideration [396−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
406 MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to allow addtl time for L Sherman to resp (o/j) to pltfs' m/reconsider (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
407 MOTION by plaintiffs for partial summary judgment (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
408 EXHIBITS to pltfs' mot for partial sum jgm and brf in supp (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
409 SEALED DOCUMENT (oversized doc) (redacted version unsealed 11/12/02 per #717 titled: exhibits under seal to pltfs' mot for partial sum jgm and brf in supp) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 09/26/2001)
410 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy setting motion to quash subp/depo [348−1] HRG set for 9:30 10/15/01 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, setting motion to extend ddln to depose Greg Robinson until mid−August [352−1] HRG set for 9:30 10/15/01 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, setting motion for order requiring dfdt to show cause why it should not be held in contempt of Crt's sched ord [368−1] HRG set for 9:30 10/15/01 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, setting motion to strike Tameka Daniels as a witness [373−1] HRG set for 9:30 10/15/01 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, setting motion to quash subpoena [380−1] HRG set for 9:30 10/15/01 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
411 MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed page limitation of brf in supp (o/j) of partial mot for sum jgm (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 09/27/2001 (Entered: 09/27/2001)
412 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes. Plaintiff(s) APPLICATION TO FILE BRIEF EXCEEDING 25 PAGES in support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [411−1] is granted. (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
413 MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by defendant Tulsa, City of to sever supervisory pltfs from the class (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
414 APPENDIX VOLUME 1 by defendant Tulsa, City of re [413−1] (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/09/2001 (Entered: 10/09/2001)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 49 of 115

10/05/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/10/2001 10/15/2001
10/16/2001 10/16/2001 10/16/2001 10/16/2001
10/16/2001 10/18/2001
10/18/2001 10/18/2001 10/18/2001 10/19/2001 10/22/2001 10/22/2001

415 APPENDIX VOLUME 2 by defendant Tulsa, City of re [413−1] (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
416 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to strike Dr Ayres' July 2001 suppl expert rpt [402−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
417 PARTIALLY UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for relief from Local Rules 7.1.C,7.2.C, and 7.2.D (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
418 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes denying motion to reconsider [396−1]; finding the motion to allow addtl time for L Sherman to resp to pltfs' m/reconsider [406−1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
419 MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy taking under advisement on 10/15/01 the motion to quash subp/depo [348−1] taking under advisement on 10/15/01 the motion to extend ddln to depose Greg Robinson until mid−August [352−1] taking under advisement on 10/15/01 the motion for order requiring dfdt to show cause why it should not be held in contempt of Crt's sched ord [368−1] taking under advisement on 10/15/01 the motion to strike Tameka Daniels as a witness [373−1] taking under advisement on 10/15/01 the motion to quash subpoena [380−1] (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
REMARK Letter placed in file from Attorney James O. Goodwin regarding hearing held 10/15/01. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/16/2001)
420 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to compel prod of complete stmt of Bobby Busby , and to change time through 12/14/01 to resp to mot p/sumjgm (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
421 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion for relief from Local Rules 7.1.C,7.2.C, and 7.2.D [417−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
422 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to compel prod of complete stmt of Bobby Busby [420−1], finding the motion to extend time through 12/14/01 to resp to mot p/sumjgm [420−2] moot. (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
423 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes terminating motion for relief from Local Rules 7.1.C,7.2.C, and 7.2.D [417−1] (See ord for details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
424 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy denying motion to quash subp/depo [348−1]; finding the motion to extend ddln to depose Greg Robinson until mid−August [352−1] stricken as moot. granting motion to quash subpoena [380−1]; denying motion for order requiring dfdt to show cause why it should not be held in contempt of Crt's sched ord [368−1]; denying motion to strike Tameka Daniels as a witness [373−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
425 MOTION by plaintiffs to change time until 11/1/01 to resp to mot to sever (o/j) the supervisory pltfs from the class (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
426 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to motion to compel prod of complete stmt of Bobby Busby [420−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
427 UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to set a ddl for dfdt to file mot to decertify class (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
428 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Tulsa, City of by Jean Ann Hudson (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
429 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to extend time until 11/1/01 [425−1] to resp to motion to sever supervisory pltfs from the class [413−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
430 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to set a ddl for dfdt to file mot to decertify class and corresponding limitation of 50 pgs for such mot [427−1]; dfdt shall have until 1/15/02 to file mot to decertify the class; the mot and pltfs' resp shall not exceed 50 pgs (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/22/2001)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 50 of 115

10/23/2001 10/25/2001 10/29/2001 10/29/2001 10/29/2001
11/01/2001 11/01/2001 11/07/2001 11/09/2001 11/13/2001 11/13/2001 11/13/2001 11/13/2001 11/13/2001 11/14/2001 11/14/2001 11/14/2001 11/15/2001
11/15/2001 11/15/2001

431 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Robert Murray Blakemore (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/24/2001)
432 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion to compel prod of complete stmt of Bobby Busby [420−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2001)
433 OBJECTION by movant Lewis Jr Barber to Magistrate's decision [424−1]... (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
433 ...MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by movant Lewis Jr Barber to set aside order [424−1] , and for findings and conclusions (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
434 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to set aside order [424−1] [433−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion for findings and conclusions [433−2] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
435 RESPONSE by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to motion to sever supervisory pltfs from the class [413−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
436 APPEAL (OBJECTION) FROM MAGISTRATE'S ORDER [424−1] by defendant Tulsa, City of (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
437 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy re m/compel [420−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy for date(s) of: 10/15/01(C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 26) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
438 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to Lewis Barber's Rule 72 obj to magistrate's decision [433−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
439 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to define the temporal scope of pltfs' Section 1983, Section 1981, and Title VII clms (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
440 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to seal exhs AHof rply m/sever (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
441 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion to sever supervisory pltfs from the class [413−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
442 SEALED DOCUMENT (redacted version unsealed 11/12/02 per #717 titled: Exhibit "A" and "H" under seal) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 11/14/2001)
443 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiffs for relief under terms of Crt's 10/16/01 ord (o/j) and from Local Rule 7.1(C) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
444 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to take judicial ntc of pltf Finley's prior termination(o/j) proceedings (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
445 BRIEF by defendant Tulsa, City of in support of motion to take judicial ntc of pltf Finley's prior termination proceedings [444−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/15/2001 (Entered: 11/15/2001)
446 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes terminating motion for relief under terms of Crt's 10/16/01 ord and from Local Rule 7.1(C) [443−1] setting motion to define the temporal scope of pltfs' Section 1983, Section 1981, and Title VII clms [439−1] response to motion ddl to: 1/11/02 (see ord for details) (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
447 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to seal exhs AHof rply m/sever [440−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
448 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to dfdt's objs [436−1] to Magistrate Judge's 10/18/01 ord [424−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/16/2001)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 51 of 115

11/15/2001 11/19/2001
11/20/2001 11/20/2001 11/20/2001 11/20/2001 11/20/2001 11/20/2001 11/26/2001 11/27/2001 11/27/2001 11/28/2001
11/28/2001 11/29/2001 11/30/2001 11/30/2001 11/30/2001

449 EXHIBITS to pltfs' resp to dfdt's objs to magistrate judge's 10/18/01 ord (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
450 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy : referring to Judge Sven Erik Holmes the motion to set aside order [424−1] [433−1], referring to Judge Sven Erik Holmes the motion for findings and conclusions [433−2] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
451 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Motions/STATUS HRG is set for 10:00 a.m. on 11/28/01 (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
452 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of in limine to exclude testimony of pltfs' exp witn Goble (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
453 BRIEF by defendant Tulsa, City of in support of motion in limine to exclude testimony of pltfs' exp witn Goble [452−1] (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
454 MOTION by plaintiffs to reopen discovery as to transfer of Walter Busby (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
455 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to APPEAL (OBJECTION) FROM MAGISTRATE'S ORDER [424−1] [436−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
456 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes overruling motion to set aside order [424−1] [433−1], overruling motion for findings and conclusions [433−2], overruling objection [433−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
457 MOTION by plaintiffs for evidentiary hearing (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
458 AMENDED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of in limine re testimony of pltfs' exp wit Goble (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
459 AMENDED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to take judicial ntc of pltf Finley's prior term procdgs (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
460 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Status hearing held 11/28/01 ; Pties req another mediation in this matter &to keep the 4/02 trial date and to stay matters untl 12/31/01−pties have agrd to ask Jdg West in WD/OK to conduct the mediation; jt prop sched due frm pties 12/3/01; appl/stay due frm pties 12/3/01; 10 pg stmt w/no exhs due by noon on 12/3/01 &to be submitted to Article III Stlmt Jdg West &not to be shown to ea other or filed w/ct (due frm ea side); jt propo due frm pties re: tody's ruling &etc by 12/3/01; ct enters stay untl Jdg West rpts status back to Dist Ct; if Jdg West accepts assgnmt, stay will be ext into mid−Jan 2002; STATUS HRG re: stay set for 1:30 1/15/02 , Mot Hrg set for 2:30 1/25/02 ; the depos of Mr. Barber addressed &Mr. Goodwin to prov form to Mr. Bullock by 12/5/01; SJ Hrg remains as set for 2/1/02 at 10:30 a.m. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
TRANSCRIPT of An Excerpt before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 11/28/01(C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 11) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
461 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes re status hrg on all pndg mots on 11/28/01 , CASE STAYED pndg outcome of proposed stlmt negotiations (See ord for details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
462 MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to withdraw attorney Michael J Lissau (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
463 MOTION w/brf by movant Lewis Jr Barber for reconsideration of 11/20/01 ord , or in the alternative to certify question (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 12/03/2001 (Entered: 12/03/2001)
464 MOTION w/brf by movant Lewis Jr Barber to stay 11/20/01 ord (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 52 of 115

12/03/2001
12/03/2001 12/03/2001 12/04/2001 12/10/2001
12/20/2001 01/09/2002 01/09/2002
01/09/2002 02/12/2002 02/12/2002 02/26/2002 03/27/2002 03/27/2002

465 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to withdraw attorney Michael J Lissau [462−1]; attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Roy C Johnson, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Mark A Moore, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Dwight E Jackson, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Steven L Gibbs, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Debbie R Crisp, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Debra D Dickens, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Tammara McKinney−Olden, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Rufus E Newsome, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Tyrone D Lynn, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Marvin Blades, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Walter E Busby Jr, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Derrek L Lewis, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Ray D Nelson, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Cornelius D Finley, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Gary L Pitts, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for Albert L Young, attorney Michael Joseph Lissau for All Plaintiffs (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
466 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to stay 11/20/01 ord [464−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
PROPOSED Joint Amended Scheduling Order: forwarded to: seh−j (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
467 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: SETTLMT CONF set for 10:30am on 12/12/01 before Judge Lee R. West in Ctrm 3, 4th Floor, US Courthouse, Tulsa, OK; terms and conditions of the 3/23/98 settlmt conf order [137−1] shall remain in force and effect (cc: all counsel) (dcap, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
468 JOINT AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes ; motion filing ddl reset for 2/15/02 ; proposed pretrial order due 3/29/02 ; SUMMARY JUDGMENT HRG reset for 11:30 3/29/02 ; PRETRIAL CONF reset for 1:30 4/5/02 ; TRIAL reset for 8:30 4/15/02 (see sched ord for further ddlns) (cc: all cnsl) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/11/2001)
469 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a STATUS HRG is set for 3:00 p.m. on 1/9/02 (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
470 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to withdraw attys R Ashe Jr., N Rafuse, D Gevertz (o/j), R Farber and W Kaspers (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
471 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Status hearing held on 1/9/02 ; case is stayed pndg rpt frm settlement jdg; ct suspends the 1/15/02 hrg date; STATUS HRG set for 12:00 (noon) on 2/12/02 &new sched will be set at that time if nec; argmts heard on the mot/WD by Paul Hastings Law Firm−no obj−ct grnts. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/11/2002)
472 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to withdraw attys R Ashe Jr., N Rafuse, D Gevertz, R Farber and W Kaspers [470−1] for Tulsa, City of, (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/11/2002)
473 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Roy C Johnson by N Kay Bridger−Riley (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
REMARK: Upon pties' req, ct strikes the stat hrg set for 2/12/02 (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Status Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 1/9/02 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 15 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
REMARK: Pties phoned re: SJ Hrg of 3/29/02 &PT of 4/5/02 are stricken. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/27/2002)
474 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Pretrial order deadline, the Pretrial Conference, and the Summary Judgment Hearing are stricken until further order of the Court. Parties are directed to file a Joint Status Report with the Court on or before April 5, 2002. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/27/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 53 of 115

04/01/2002 04/04/2002 04/05/2002
04/05/2002 04/05/2002 04/05/2002 04/05/2002 04/08/2002 04/10/2002 04/15/2002
04/17/2002 04/18/2002 04/22/2002
04/24/2002 04/24/2002 04/24/2002

475 SEALED DOCUMENT filed at 11:05 a.m. on 4/1/02. [Document unsealed at 4/5/02 Hrg &filed of record on 4/5/02] (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 04/08/2002 (Entered: 04/01/2002)
476 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a STATUS HRG is set for 1:30 p.m. on 4/5/02 (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/04/2002)
477 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Status hearing held 4/5/02 ; on 4/1/02 the unfiled original Joint Motion for Approval &Adoption of the Consent Decree,Final Condition of Settlement, and unexecuted Objection to Settlement document was placed UNDER SEAL; ct notes no obj has been filed as of this date &by the terms of the agrmt, this is an effective settlement; stmts made by the pties and the pties req ct approves the mot &consent decree; ct gr the Joint Motion for Approval &Adoption of the Consent Decree and it is filed in open ct; Consent Decree, Final Condition of Settlement, and the unexecuted "Objection to Settlement" page is filed of record in open ct; pties to submit prop sched by 4/10/02 on how to proceed on implementation of this process and what proceedings need to be set−clk to prov dates for hrgs to pties upon their req. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 04/08/2002 (Entered: 04/05/2002)
478 NOTICE (FINAL CONDITION OF SETTLEMENT) (cc: attys Bullock &Simmons) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 04/05/2002 (Entered: 04/05/2002)
479 OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT (UNEXECUTED) (cc: attys Bullock &Simmons) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
480 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of for approval/adoption of the consent decree (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
481 ORDER (CONSENT DECREE) by Judge Sven Erik Holmes (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Status Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 4/8/02 (C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 12) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
PROPOSED Scheduling Order for Submission of Proposed Consent Decree forwarded to: Judge (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/10/2002)
482 SCHEDULING ORDER FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE by Judge Sven Erik Holmes ; IN−COURT HRG on apprvl of ntc set for 11:00 4/26/02 ; MISCELLANEOUS HRG on objs set for 11:30 6/14/02 (see ord for further ddlns) (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
483 JOINT SUBMISSION OF NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT filed by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
484 MOTION by Plaintiffs to reset (resched) hrg on apprvl of ntc of stlmt of class action set 4/26/02 (no o) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
485 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reschedule the Hearing set on 4/26/02 on the Approval of the Notice of Settlement of Class Action 484 is GRANTED. The Hearing is reset for 4/24/02 at 2:00 p.m. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 04/22/2002 (Entered: 04/22/2002)
PROPOSED Order Requiring Service of Notice Upon Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge Number 93, and All Tulsa Police Officers re: forwarded to: Judge (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
PROPOSED Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Fairness Hearing, and Right to Object forwarded to Judge (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
486 ORDER REQUIRING SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE NUMBER 93, AND ALL TULSA POLICE OFFICERS by Judge Sven Erik Holmes (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/24/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 54 of 115

04/24/2002
04/24/2002
05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/07/2002
05/10/2002 05/10/2002 05/10/2002 05/14/2002 05/14/2002 05/14/2002 05/14/2002 05/16/2002

487 ORDER (NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, FAIRNESS HEARING, AND RIGHT TO OBJECT) by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, hrg set for 6/14/02 at 11:30 a.m. before Judge Sven Erik Holmes re objs (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
488 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Hrg on Approval of Notice held 4/24/02; Proposed Order Requiring Service of Notice upon the FOP, Lodge #93, and All Other Tulsa Police Officers and the Proposed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Fairness Hrg, and Right to Object discussed−corrections to be made and re−submitted to the Ct this afternoon−Ct will execute the same today; Hrg on Obj remains as set on 6/14/02 at 11:30 a.m.; srv of pties discussed; Pltf req obj ddl be cont to 5/22/02 &ct grnts. (T. Copeland) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
489 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to intervene as a dfdt (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
490 MOTION by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order for attorney James E Phillips to appear pro hac vice (o/j, fees pd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
491 MOTION by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order for attorney Douglas L Rogers to appear pro hac vice (o/j, fees pd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
492 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order by James E Phillips (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
493 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order by Loren F Gibson (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
494 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order by Douglas L Rogers (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
FINANCIAL ENTRY re [491−1]: PHV fee paid for Douglas Rogers in the amt of $50.00; receipt #102196 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
FINANCIAL ENTRY re [490−1]: PHV fee paid for James E Phillips in the amt of $50.00; receipt #102197 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
495 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion for attorney Douglas L Rogers to appear pro hac vice [491−1], granting motion for attorney James E Phillips to appear pro hac vice [490−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/08/2002)
496 MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed page limitation of resp to m/intervene(o/j) by Lodge #93 (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 05/13/2002 (Entered: 05/13/2002)
497 MOTION by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to compel depos and produce docs (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/13/2002)
498 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to compel depos and produce docs [497−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/13/2002)
499 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : withdrawing the referral of the motion to compel depos and produce docs [497−1] (see min ord for further info) (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/14/2002)
500 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to exceed page limitation of resp to m/intervene by Lodge #93 [496−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/14/2002)
501 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to intervene as a dfdt (oversized doc) [489−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
502 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Tulsa, City of by Joel L Wohlgemuth (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
503 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to motion to compel depos and produce docs [497−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/17/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 55 of 115

05/17/2002 05/20/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/22/2002 05/22/2002 05/22/2002 05/22/2002 05/23/2002
05/23/2002 05/28/2002 05/30/2002 06/03/2002
06/03/2002

504 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to intervene as a dfdt [489−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/20/2002)
505 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to compel depos and produce docs [497−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
506 MOTION by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to exceed page limitation of rply brf to (o/j) mem of pltfs in oppos to mot to intervene (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
507 REPLY by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to response to motion to intervene as a dfdt [489−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
508 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : setting motion to compel depos and produce docs [497−1] and motion to intervene as a dfdt [489−1] HRG set for 12:30 5/23/02 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
509 REPLY by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to response to motion to compel depos and produce docs [497−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
510 REPLY by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to City of Tulsa's response to motion to intervene as a dfdt [489−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 05/22/2002 (Entered: 05/22/2002)
511 REPLY by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to pltfs' response to motion to intervene as a dfdt [489−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
512 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order by James Ronald Polan, Donald Mitchell Bingham (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
513 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to exceed page limitation of rply brf to memorandum of pltfs in oppos to mot to intervene [506−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
REMARK: CRD phoned pties re: poss of hrg of 5/23/02 being cont to 5/24/02 at 3:00 p.m. if not finished on 5/23/02. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
514 MOTION by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order asking ct to reject prop consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
515 BRIEF by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order in support of motion asking ct to reject prop consent decree [514−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
516 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 5/23/02; Hrg on objs is set for 6/14/02; MJ McCarthy will handle any discovery disputes; argmts heard on mot/intervene filed by FOP (#489) and mot/compel depos and prod of docs filed by FOP (#497)−mot/intervene−MUA; mot/compel depos of certain pties−den at this time but may be re−urged at a later time; mot/prod of docs−gr and to be produced by noon on 5/31/02; no hrg set for 5/24/02 at 3:00 p.m.; protective order addressed−FOP is den access at this time as to anything under protective order.(G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
517 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order by James E Phillips &Douglas L Rogers (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/24/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 5/23/02 (C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 55) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
518 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes re [514−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 05/31/2002 (Entered: 05/31/2002)
519 MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy; Discovery conf held by phone; ct den plts opposition to request for discovery on condition that FOP lawyers enter into atty eyes only prot order; pty to prepare and circulate proposed order for cts signature. tape 02X5 (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/03/2002)
520 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Hearing on Objections set for 6/14/02 is moved up to an earlier time and date; THUS, the Hearing on Objections is reset for 10:00 a.m. on 6/13/02 (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/03/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 56 of 115

06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/04/2002 06/04/2002 06/04/2002 06/04/2002 06/05/2002 06/05/2002 06/05/2002 06/06/2002 06/06/2002 06/06/2002 06/10/2002 06/12/2002 06/12/2002

521 MOTION by plaintiffs to reconsider Magistrate's ord allowing FOP acces to protected info (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 06/04/2002 (Entered: 06/04/2002)
522 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to reconsider Magistrate's ord allowing FOP acces to protected info [521−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
523 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed page limitation of resp (o/j) to mot of Lodge #93 asking Crt to reject proposed consent decree (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
524 MOTION by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to exceed page limitation of brf in resp (o/j) to Crt's ord of 5/29/02 (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
526 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to exceed page limitation of resp to mot of Lodge #93 asking Crt to reject proposed consent decree [523−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
PROPOSED Supplemental Protective Order: forwarded to: fhm−mj (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
527 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to FOP's req for discovery (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
525 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy denying motion to reconsider Magistrate's ord allowing FOP acces to protected info [521−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
528 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Lodge 93 Fraternal Order by Scott B Wood (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
529 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to exceed page limitation of brf in resp to Crt's ord of 5/29/02 [524−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
530 RESPONSE by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to motion asking ct to reject prop consent decree [514−1] (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
531 SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy: (See ord for details) (cc: all cnsl) (faxed to ptys by CRD) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 06/05/2002 (Entered: 06/05/2002)
532 MOTION by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to file suppl brf re m/intv out of time (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
533 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to file suppl brf re m/intv out of time [532−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2002)
534 MOTION by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to stay rlg on m/approve consent decree until after Crt rls on FOP's m/intervene (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2002)
535 BRIEF (MEMORANDUM OF LAW) by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order in support of motion to stay rlg on m/approve consent decree until after Crt rls on FOP's m/intervene [534−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2002)
536 BRIEF DETAILING CBA AND FPAA VIOLATIONS, RESPONDING TO THIS COURT'S ORDER OF 5/30/02 [518−1] by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 06/07/2002 (Entered: 06/07/2002)
537 UNOPPOSED MOTION by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to withdraw attys D Bingham and J Polan (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/10/2002)
538 RESPONSE by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to [536−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/13/2002)
539 RESPONSE by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to motion to stay rlg on m/approve consent decree until after Crt rls on FOP's m/intervene [534−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/13/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 57 of 115

06/12/2002 06/12/2002 06/13/2002 06/13/2002 06/13/2002 06/13/2002
06/17/2002 06/17/2002 06/18/2002 06/19/2002 06/19/2002 06/20/2002 06/20/2002
06/20/2002 06/21/2002 06/26/2002 06/27/2002

540 MOTION by World Publishing Co to intervene (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/13/2002)
541 BRIEF by World Publishing Co in support of motion to intervene [540−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/13/2002)
542 ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to [538−1] and reply to resp [536−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/13/2002)
543 EXHIBITS by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order in support of objection [542−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/13/2002)
544 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to withdraw attys Donald Mitchell Bingham and James Ronald Polan for Lodge 93 Fraternal Order [537−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/13/2002)
545 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Fairness Hrg/Hrg on Obj held on 6/13/02; Mot/Intervene Hrg is set for 9:30 a.m. on 6/20/02; Fairness Hrg Continuance will be directly after the Mot/Intervene Hrg on 6/20/02; Pltf presents case in chief w/testmny of witn; Pltf offers Jt Exhs #1−16 (#15 omitted) w/no obj frm Deft City of Tulsa &w/obj frm Prop Interv FOP−ct adm; Pltf offers Exhs #17−32 w/no obj frm Deft City of Tulsa &w/obj frm Prop Interv FOP−ct provisionally adm; FOP obj to prcdg at this time and req to depose witn &obj to docs/exhs (states not provided to FOP in timely manner); re: FOP depos − MUA.(G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/14/2002)
546 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes setting motion to intervene as a dfdt (FOP) [489−1] HRG set for 9:30 6/20/02; witn lists due by 6/19/02 at 12:00 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of hrg on objs to stlmt before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 6/13/02 (C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 158 ) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
547 WITNESS list by defendant Tulsa, City of (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/18/2002)
548 WITNESS list by unknown Lodge 93 Fraternal Order (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
549 WITNESS list by plaintiffs (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
550 MOTION AND SUPPORTING BRIEF by defendant Tulsa, City of to quash (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/20/2002)
551 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 6/20/02 on Mot/Intervene; pties present evid w/testimony of witn; pltf offers exhs #34, #35, #36 &#37 (clippings from FOP file dated 10/11/01, 12/6/01, 11/19/01 &9/6/01)− MUA; pltf offers exhs frm prev hrg; pties rest; Proposed process &witn lists due 7/5/02; Fairness Hrg cont to 7/15/02 at 9:00 a.m.−pties to inform Clerk approx time frame needed for the remaining portion of the Fairness Hrg.(G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
552 REPLY by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to response to motion to stay rlg on m/approve consent decree until after Crt rls on FOP's m/intervene [534−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
REMARK: Deft's Orig Set of Exhs retained by the ct; newspaper clippings are retained by ct, copied, &cpies forwarded to pties by ct−orig rtnd to Atty Loren Gibson. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
553 MOTION by Plaintiffs to change time to resp to Tulsa World's m/intv (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
554 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to extend time to resp to Tulsa World's m/intv [553−1]; the ddl for resps to m/intervene is hereby extended; the Crt will set a sched for briefing if appropriate, after its rlg on the fairness of the proposed consent decree (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/27/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 58 of 115

06/27/2002 06/28/2002 07/03/2002 07/05/2002 07/08/2002
07/08/2002 07/09/2002 07/10/2002 07/10/2002 07/11/2002 07/15/2002
07/17/2002
07/19/2002 07/22/2002 07/22/2002 07/22/2002 07/26/2002

555 RESPONSE (STATEMENT) by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to intervene [540−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
556 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to addtl obj of FOP Lodge No. 93 [542−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
557 WITNESS list by Plaintiffs (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/04/2002)
558 WITNESS list by defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/05/2002)
559 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, re Crt's ord of 6/20/02; ptys and Lodge #93 directed to file no later than 7/10/02 at 12:00 p.m. a jt submission articulating the ptys' and the FOP's jt proposal for hrgs of next wk on both fairness of stlmt and mot to intervene (see ord for details) (cc: all counsel, faxed to attys Bullock, Simmons and Phillips) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/08/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of motion to intervene before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 6/20/02 (C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 261 ) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/08/2002)
560 REPLY by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to response to motion to stay rlg on m/approve consent decree until after Crt rls on FOP's m/intervene [534−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
561 MOTION by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to continue fairness hrg (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
563 JOINT NOTICE OF PARTIES PROP PROCESS FOR FURTHER HRGS by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of, Lodge 93 Fraternal Order (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 07/11/2002 (Entered: 07/11/2002)
562 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : denying motion to continue fairness hrg [561−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
565 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Contin of Fairness Hrg held on 7/15/02−7/17/02 ; Pltf moves for adm of tstmny of Bob Jackson &Larry Simmons frm prev Mot/Interv Hrg−no obj frm Deft City of Tulsa &Prop Interv FOP makes record−Ct adm tstmny; Prop Interv FOP renews mot prev made−MUA; Pltf cont w/pres evid w/tstmny/witn &exhs; Pltf rests; Prop Interv FOP pres evid w/tstmny/witn &exhs; Deft City of Tulsa pres evid w/tstmny/witn &exhs; Deft City of Tulsa rests; Pltf moves to strike study of Witn Rink &renews mot; Prop Interv FOP rests; Pltf moves to strike FOP Exh #23 &#15−Ct adm; FOP offers Exhs #1−23=Ct adm; Exhs discussed and adm; Articles in Tulsa World appended to record as Exhs; Deft City of Tulsa supports on ltd basis the intervention by FOP; Pties rest; Ct extends date by which Mayor LaFortune has to either agree or obj to the stlmnt agrmt until 8/16/02; Mayor LaFortune ord by Ct to file a stmt expressing his agrmt or obj to the stlmnt agrmt on or bfr noon 8/16/02; Cpy of Exhs retained by the Ct (Orig Exhs rtnd to pties); Mot/interv−MUA; hrg will be set after 8/16/02. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/18/2002)
564 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, extending to 8/16/02 for Mayor W LaFortune must either agree to or obj to stlmt agrmt; on/before noon on 8/16/02 Mayor LaFortune shall file of rec in this matter a stmt that he agrees to stlmt agrmt or he objs to stlmt agrmt (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of An Excerpt before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 7/17/02 (C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 24) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
566 POST HEARING BRIEF FILED by Plaintiffs (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
567 USM RETURN OF SERVICE−executed upon Deputy Chief David Been on 7/15/02 of subpoena (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
568 USM RETURN OF SERVICE−executed upon Deputy Chief Charles Jackson on 7/12/02 of subpoena (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Hrg on Objs to Stlmt before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 7/15/02 (C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 159−381) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered:

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 59 of 115

07/26/2002 07/26/2002 08/14/2002
08/15/2002 08/15/2002 08/15/2002 08/15/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002
08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/20/2002 08/20/2002 08/21/2002
08/21/2002

07/26/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Hrg on Objs to Stlmt before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 7/16/02 (C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 382−621) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Hrg on Objs to Stlmt before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 7/17/02 (C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 622−769) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
569 MOTION by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to disqualify Judge Holmes from presiding further in connection w/mot for approval of consent decree, mot/intervene and related proceedings in Johnson v. Tulsa (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/2002)
570 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of &Mayor LaFortune to 7/17/02 ord [564−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/15/2002)
571 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes ; IN−COURT HRG set for 9:00 8/16/02 re 7/17/02 ord (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/15/2002)
572 MOTION by plaintiff Roy C Johnson to withdraw attorney N Kay Bridger−Riley (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
573 MOTION by plaintiffs for scheduling order (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 08/20/2002 (Entered: 08/16/2002)
574 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy : ; SCHEDULING CONFERENCE set for 9:30 8/21/02 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
575 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Status Hrg held on 8/16/02 ; Ct addresses the resp by Mayor LaFortune [#570] to the 7/17/02 ord [#564] &clarifies the resp; Jt Mot for consent decree to be adopted is WD by Deft City of Tulsa [480−1];; Ct finds consent decree is rejected; Ct ord pties to meet w/MJ McCarthy w/n 1 wk's tm frame to dev a new sched; FOP prov stat/intervention issue to the Ct; FOP is not req to appear at the sched mtg w/MJ McCarthy; Simultan Brfs due 8/30/02; Mot for Atty Kay Bridger−Riley to WD as couns for Pltf Johnson [#572]−gr; Case will proceed to trial. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
576 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to withdraw attorney N Kay Bridger−Riley for pltf Roy C Johnson [572−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Status Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 8/16/02 (C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 16) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
577 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to [573−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
578 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : denying motion for scheduling order [573−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
579 REPLY by Plaintiffs re [577−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
580 AMENDED RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to [573−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
582 MOTION by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to stay proceedings until 10th Circuit rules on PW of mandamus (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
581 MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy ; Scheduling Conference held 8/21/02; deft City Tulsa will have 30 days to resp to mot/P/S/J [#407]; pltf will have 15 days therefter to reply; sched O. will be entered. (tape #33) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
583 MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy cont'd tele sched conf held re trial date. counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/22/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 60 of 115

08/22/2002
08/23/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002
08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/27/2002 08/28/2002
08/28/2002 08/29/2002

584 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes setting motion to stay proceedings until 10th Circuit rules on PW of mandamus [582−1] and motion to disqualify Judge Holmes from presiding further in w/mot for approval of consent decree, mot/intervene and related proceedings in Johnson v. Tulsa [569−1] for HRG set for 10:00 8/28/02; no later than 8/26/02 at 4:30 p.m., the 2 ptys to this action, pltf Class and dfdt City of Tulsa are directed to file brfs w/the Crt re FOP's mots; such brfs shall state whether the ptys supports/opposes the FOP's mots (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/22/2002)
585 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to continue hrg set 8/28/02 until 8/26/02 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
586 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : denying motion to continue hrg set 8/28/02 until 8/26/02 [585−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
587 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to change time of hrg set for 8/28/02 from 10:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
588 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting in part and denying in part the motion to change time of hrg set for 8/28/02 from 10:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. [587−1]; the motion to stay proceedings until 10th Circuit rules on PW of mandamus [582−1] and motion to disqualify Judge Holmes from presiding further in connection w/mot for approval of consent decree, mot/intervene and related proceedings in Johnson v. Tulsa [569−1] HRG reset for 9:00 8/28/02 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
589 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to disqualify Judge ... (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 08/29/2002 (Entered: 08/27/2002)
589 ...RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to stay proceedings until 10th Circuit rules on PW of mandamus [582−1], to motion to disqualify Judge Holmes from presiding further in connection w/mot for approval of consent decree, mot/intervene and related proceedings in Johnson v. Tulsa [569−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
590 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to motion to disqualify Judge [589−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 08/29/2002 (Entered: 08/27/2002)
591 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to motion to stay proceedings until 10th Circuit rules on PW of mandamus [582−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
592 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to motion to disqualify Judge [589−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 08/29/2002 (Entered: 08/28/2002)
593 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 8/28/02; Proposed Intervenor FOP's Mot/Intervene as a Deft [#489] addressed−FOP seeking to become a full pty to this case−Deft City of Tulsa hasn't made a decision whether to support the intervention or not−Pltf opposes it; Argmts heard on Proposed Intervenor FOP's Mot/Disqualify Judge Holmes [#569]−Pltf opposes it; Argmts heard on Deft City of Tulsa's Mot/Disqualify Judge [#589]−Deft offers 2 exhs under seal−Proposed Intervenor World Publ &Pltf obj to the sealed docs/exhs−Proposed Intervenor FOP would like access to the sealed docs/exhs−sealed exhs are den by ct as out/time submission, not relevant &this is not an evid hrg; Deft City of Tulsa's Mot/Disqualify Judge [#569]−ct den; Ct takes FOP's Mot/Disqualify Judge Holmes [#569] under advisement; Deft proffers SEALED Exhs #1 &#2 to the ct in sealed envelopes−Ct directs Clk to accept the sealed proffered exhs.(G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/28/2002)
596 SUPPLEMENTAL CITATION TO IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION by defendant Tulsa, City of re motion to disqualify Judge [589−1], re motion to disqualify Judge Holmes from presiding further in connection w/mot for approval of consent decree, mot/intervene and related proceedings in Johnson v. Tulsa [569−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
594 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes denying motion to disqualify Judge [589−1]; denying City's oral mot to admit two proposed exhs into evid; sustaining pltfs' obj to admission of City's exhs; denying City's oral mot to proffer the exhs into evid

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 61 of 115

08/29/2002
08/29/2002 08/29/2002 08/30/2002 08/30/2002 08/30/2002 08/30/2002 09/03/2002 09/03/2002 09/03/2002
09/03/2002 09/04/2002 09/06/2002 09/09/2002 09/09/2002 09/10/2002
09/10/2002

and the proposed exhs are stricken from the rec (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
595 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes denying motion to disqualify Judge Holmes from presiding further in connection w/mot for approval of consent decree, mot/intervene and related proceedings in Johnson v. Tulsa [569−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy for date(s) of: 8/21/02 ( C/R: Terri Copeland, Pages: 23 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Mtn Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 8/28/02 (C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 42) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
597 MOTION by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to unseal in connection w/mtn to disqualify (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
598 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to intervene as a dfdt [489−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
602 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order on intervention (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
603 ADDITIONAL RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to motion to intervene as a dfdt [489−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
599 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes re FOP's mot for stay [582−1], the Crt finds that if by 4:00 p.m. on 9/5/02, the FOP has not filed a pet, the FOP's mot for stay will be denied (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
600 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes finding the motion to unseal in connection w/mtn to disqualify [597−1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
601 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes motion filing ddl set for 10/8/02; pretrial order ddl set for 12/27/02 ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 1:30 1/3/03 ; TRIAL set for 9:00 1/21/03 ; MISCELLANEOUS HRG (hrg on all pending mtns) set for 10:00 11/13/02 &11/14/02 (see ord for further ddlns) (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
604 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to reopen disc (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
605 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to reopen disc [604−1] (See ord for further details (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
REMARK rcvd courtesy cpy of pet writ mandamus &index (forwarded to file) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
606 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes setting motion to stay proceedings until 10th Circuit rules on PW of mandamus [582−1]; HRG set for 11:30 9/13/02 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
607 LETTER from USCA re: ( 10th Circuit Case No. 02−5142 ); pet for mandamus was docketed 9/5/02 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
608 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to intervene as a dfdt [489−1]; the pltfs, dfdt City of Tulsa dn dfdt FOP are ordered to appear before Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy on 9/12/02 at 2:30 p.m. to prepare a proposed final schedule; SCHEDULING CONFERENCE set for 2:30 9/12/02 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
609 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : denying motion to stay rlg on m/approve consent decree until after Crt rls on FOP's m/intervene [534−1] as moot (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/12/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 62 of 115

09/10/2002 09/11/2002 09/11/2002 09/11/2002 09/11/2002
09/12/2002 09/12/2002 09/12/2002 09/12/2002 09/13/2002 09/13/2002 09/16/2002 09/16/2002 09/16/2002
09/16/2002
09/16/2002 09/16/2002

610 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : denying motion to quash [550−1] as moot (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
REMARK Sched Conf reset for 9/16/02 at 9:30 − vbl ntc (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
611 OPPOSED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to continue Sept 12 hrg (o/fhm−mj) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
612 MOTION by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to continue sched conf until 9/16 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
613 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting in part &denying in part FOP's motion to continue sched conf until 9/16 [612−1], granting City's motion to continue Sept 12 hrg [611−1] ; SCHEDULING CONFERENCE set for 9:00 9/16/02 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy setting motion to stay proceedings until 10th Circuit rules on PW of mandamus [582−1] HRG set for 1:30 9/16/02 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
REMARK: Pties notified by CRD re: hrg set 9/13/02 passed to 9/16/02 at 1:30 p.m. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
614 MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by plaintiffs for sanctions arising from City's bad faith actions destroying the stlmt of this case (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/13/2002)
615 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT by plaintiffs in support of motion for sanctions arising from City's bad faith actions destroying the stlmt of this case [614−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/13/2002)
616 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Tulsa, City of by Christopher Lee Abernathy (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/13/2002)
617 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for hearing (stlmt conf) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/13/2002)
618 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Paul J. Cleary the motion for hearing (stlmt conf) [617−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/13/2002)
619 MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by plaintiffs for reconsideration of ord of 9/10/02 gr intervention (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 09/16/2002 (Entered: 09/16/2002)
620 RESPONSE (OBJECTION) by defendant Tulsa, City of to suppl motion to reopen disc [604−1], to motion to reopen discovery as to transfer of Walter Busby [454−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
621 MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy ; Scheduling Conference held 9/16/02 , and to the extent the FOP req the court to strike the current sched O that oral mot is den; by agreement of City the FOP will be given full acess to all disc in case ; SCHEDULING CONFERENCE set for 9:30 9/24/02 by telephone before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy (tape #02−C2−37) (cc: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
622 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 9/16/02; Deft City of Tulsa's Appl/Settlement Conf [#617] held in abeyance−FOP joins in this appl; Argmts heard on Mot/Stay Prcdgs pndg PW/Mandamus ruling by 10th Circuit [#582]−MUA; Pltf &Deft City of Tulsa has no obj to 1/21/03 trial. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
623 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes denying motion to stay proceedings until 10th Circuit rules on PW of mandamus [582−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
624 ORDER from USCA re: standing ( 10th Circuit Case No. 02−5142 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/17/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 63 of 115

09/17/2002 09/18/2002 09/18/2002 09/18/2002 09/18/2002 09/18/2002 09/18/2002 09/19/2002 09/19/2002 09/19/2002 09/19/2002
09/19/2002 09/20/2002 09/20/2002 09/20/2002 09/23/2002 09/23/2002 09/23/2002 09/24/2002

625 MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to exceed page limitation (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
626 MOTION by OK AG to withdraw attorney Dan Connally as cnsl (o/j) for objector OK Coun Law Enforce (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
627 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy re FOP's mot for possible modifications to dates contained in current sched ord (See ord for details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
628 MINUTES: Exp tele hrg by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy ptys agree that ct rptr Mary Daniels may copy for the City sealed docs which were part of a depo. (02−FHM−02) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
629 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to motion in limine re testimony of pltfs' exp wit Goble [458−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
630 RESPONSE by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to motion to take judicial ntc of pltf Finley's prior term procdgs [459−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
631 RESPONSE by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to motion to define the temporal scope of pltfs' Section 1983, Section 1981, and Title VII clms [439−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
REMARK: rcvd courtesy copy of brief of FOP on standing (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
632 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to exceed page limitation [625−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
633 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to withdraw attorney Dan Connally as cnsl for objector OK Coun Law Enforce [626−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
634 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : vacating [618−1] order referring dfdt's mot for stlmt conf [617−1] to Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary; such ord was entered in error, and is therefore vacated (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
635 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to change time to resp to m/psumjgm until 9/27/02 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
636 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to change time to resp to m/psumjgm until 9/27/02 [635−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
637 MOTION by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to change time to resp m/psumjgm (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
REMARK: rcvd courtesy copy of The City of Tulsa's resp re the issue of the FOP's standing to pet for writ of mandamus (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
638 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to change time to resp m/psumjgm [637−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
639 REPLY by plaintiffs to response (objection) to motion to reopen disc [604−1], motion to reopen discovery as to transfer of Walter Busby [454−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
640 RESPONSE by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to Court Ord of 9/18/02 [627−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
641 MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy ; Tele Scheduling Conference held 9/24/02; FOP resp to ct's Order of 9/18/02 discussed, Order to be entered; mot and briefing sch discussed, Order to be entered; FOP access to all disc discussed and City will continue to fully cooperate in prov FOP access and Pltf's will prov access to any disc the City can not prov, FOP to immediately contact ct if any problems develop in gaining access to all disc in case. (tape #02−FHM−02) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 64 of 115

09/24/2002 09/24/2002 09/24/2002 09/24/2002 09/25/2002
09/26/2002 09/26/2002 09/26/2002 09/26/2002 09/26/2002 09/27/2002 09/27/2002 09/30/2002
09/30/2002
09/30/2002 09/30/2002 09/30/2002

642 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, re resp of FOP [640−1] to Crt's ord [627−1] (See ord for details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy for date(s) of: 9/16/02 (C/R: Aaron H LaDuke, Pages: 33) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
643 ORDER from USCA re: ( 10th Circuit Case No. 02−5142 ) directing pltfs &City of Tulsa to resp to pet; Judge Holmes may also respond (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
REMARK: rcvd courtesy copy of petition for writ of mandamus (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
644 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy terminating motion to extend time to resp m/psumjgm [637−1]; City's resp to pltfs' mot for partial sum jgm [407−1] due 9/27/02; pltfs' reply to City's resp to pltf's mot for partial sumjgm [407−1] due 10/9/02; dispositive mots ddls reset for 10/21/02; FOP to resp to pltfs' mot for partial sumjgm [407−1] due 10/21/02; FOP to resp to pltfs' mot to reopen disc [604−1] and [454−1] due 10/21/02; resps to any mots filed on 10/21/02 due 11/5/02; pltfs' reply to FOP's resp to pltfs' mot for partial sumjgm due 11/5/02; pltfs' reply to FOP's resp to pltfs' mot to reopen disc due 11/5/02; replies to any resp to any mots filed on 10/21/02 due 11/12/02 motion filing ddl reset for 10/21/02 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
645 UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to change time to 10/2/02 to resp to m/sanc (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
646 UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to change time to 10/7/02 to rply to m/define (o/j) temporal scope (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
647 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of, intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order for third suppl protective order (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
648 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion for third suppl protective order [647−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
649 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order by Jason Allen Robertson (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
650 THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy: granting motion for third suppl protective order [647−1] (cc: all cnsl) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
651 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion for partial summary judgment [407−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
652 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to extend time to 10/7/02 [646−1] to reply to motion to define the temporal scope of pltfs' Section 1983, Section 1981, and Title VII clms [439−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
653 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to extend time to 10/2/02 [645−1] to resp to motion for sanctions arising from City's bad faith actions destroying the stlmt of this case [614−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
654 MOTION by World Publishing Co for entry of order (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
655 OBJECTIONS by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to [644−2], to [642−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/01/2002 (Entered: 10/01/2002)
656 RESPONSE by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to motion for reconsideration of ord of 9/10/02 gr intervention [619−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered:

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 65 of 115

09/30/2002 09/30/2002 10/02/2002
10/02/2002 10/03/2002 10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/07/2002 10/07/2002 10/07/2002 10/07/2002 10/08/2002
10/09/2002 10/10/2002 10/10/2002 10/11/2002 10/15/2002 10/15/2002 10/15/2002

10/01/2002)
657 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion in limine re testimony of pltfs' exp wit Goble [458−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
658 RESPONSE by World Publishing Co to [647−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
659 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, re World Publishing Co's mot to intervene [540−1] and mot for entry of ord [654−1], World Publishing is ordered to file a stmt w/Crt no later than 10/18/02 (see ord for further details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
660 RESPONSE (BRIEF IN OPPOSITION) by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion for sanctions arising from City's bad faith actions destroying the stlmt of this case [614−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/03/2002)
661 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy directing pltfs &City of Tulsa to file by 10/7/02 the copies of previously exchgnd wit lists (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/03/2002)
662 MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to exceed page limitation of rply re m/psumjgm (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
663 LETTER from USCA re: ( 10th Circuit Case No. 02−5154 ); pet for extraordinary writ docketed 9/25/02 at the 10th (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
664 WITNESS list by Plaintiffs (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
665 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to exceed page limitation of rply brf to mot for partial sumjgm [662−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
666 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion to define the temporal scope of pltfs' Section 1983, Section 1981, and Title VII clms [439−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
667 PRELIMINARY WITNESS list by defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
668 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, re FOP's objs to 9/24/02 and 9/25/02 ords of Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy, the pltfs and City are to file resp to FOP's objs no later than 10/15/02; the FOP may file a reply no later than 10/18/02 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
669 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiffs to consolidate reply to dfdts' resp (o/j) to pltfs' mot for p/sumjgm (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
670 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to consolidate reply to dfdts' resp to pltfs' mot for p/sumjgm [669−1]; rply due 11/5/02 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/10/2002 (Entered: 10/10/2002)
REMARK rcvd courtesy cpy of Resp of Pltfs to Pet of Lodge #93 of the Fraternal Order of Police for a Writ of Mandamus; Appendix in Supp; both filed at the 10th Circuit (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
671 REPLY by Plaintiffs to response to motion for reconsideration of ord of 9/10/02 gr intervention [619−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
672 REPLY by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to response to motion for sanctions arising from City's bad faith actions destroying the stlmt of this case [614−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
673 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of re [668−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
674 RESPONSE by World Publishing Co to [659−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/16/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 66 of 115

10/15/2002 10/15/2002 10/15/2002 10/21/2002 10/21/2002
10/21/2002 10/21/2002 10/21/2002
10/21/2002
10/21/2002 10/22/2002 10/25/2002 10/25/2002 10/25/2002 10/28/2002
10/28/2002 10/28/2002 10/28/2002
10/29/2002 10/29/2002 10/30/2002 10/30/2002

675 SUPPLEMENT by World Publishing Co re motion to intervene [540−1] and/or... (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
675 ...MOTION by World Publishing Co to intervene (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
676 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to [655−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
677 UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to extend time to 10/25/02 to submit m/decertify (o/j) the class (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
678 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to extend time to 10/25/02 to submit m/decertify the class [677−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
679 MOTION (FILED UNDER SEAL) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
680 MOTION (FILED UNDER SEAL) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
681 SEALED DOCUMENT (oversized doc) (titled: brief in oppos to pltfs' mot for partial sum jgm) (unsealed 11/8/02 doc #714) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 10/21/2002)
682 MOTION (FILED UNDER SEAL) (O/J) (oversized doc) (titled: mot to decertify class by dfdt−intervenor FOP) (unsealed 11/8/02 doc #714) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 10/21/2002)
683 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to add addl witns (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
684 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to amd motion to intervene [675−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/23/2002)
685 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to decertify class (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
686 BRIEF by defendant Tulsa, City of in support of motion to decertify class [685−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
687 APPENDIX by defendant Tulsa, City of re [686−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
688 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes setting motion (FILED UNDER SEAL) [680−1] HRG set for 1:30 11/8/02, setting motion (FILED UNDER SEAL) [679−1] HRG set for 1:30 11/8/02, setting motion to intervene [675−1] HRG set for 1:30 11/8/02 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
689 MOTION by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to unseal m/decertify class (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
690 MOTION by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to unseal brf in opp to m/psumjgm (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
691 AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendant Tulsa, City of of motion to decertify class [685−1], memorandum [686−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
692 MOTION by Plaintiffs to consol resp to mtns/decert class (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
693 MOTION by Plaintiffs to exceed page limitation of consol rply re m/psumjgm (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
694 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to consol resp to mtns/decert class [692−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2002)
695 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to exceed page limitation of consol rply re m/psumjgm [693−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 67 of 115

11/01/2002 11/04/2002 11/04/2002 11/04/2002 11/04/2002 11/05/2002
11/05/2002 11/05/2002 11/05/2002
11/06/2002 11/06/2002 11/06/2002 11/07/2002
11/07/2002 11/08/2002 11/08/2002 11/08/2002 11/08/2002

696 MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to continue hrg set 11/13@10:00 until 11/14(o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
697 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of, intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to [688−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
698 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: ct will address [696−1] at hrg set 11/8/02 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
699 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to add addl witns [683−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
700 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to reopen discovery as to transfer of Walter Busby [454−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
701 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to disallow amd to Dr Ayres' rpt based upon docs identified by pltfs [314−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to strike Dr Ayres' July 2001 suppl expert rpt [402−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
702 RESPONSE (PARTIAL OBJECTION) by Plaintiffs to motion to add addl witns [683−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
703 CONSOLIDATED REPLY by Plaintiffs to response to motion for partial summary judgment [407−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
704 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring the Parties' Joint Proposal In Response to the Court's October 28, 2002 Order [697−1] to Magistrate McCarthy to conduct proceedings in advance of the November 8, 2002 hearing (cc: all counsel, MJ−FHM) (dcap, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
705 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes denying motion for reconsideration of 11/20/01 ord [463−1]; re cert of question to OK Supr Ct, ct ords parties to file ntfctn or resp by 11/19/02 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/06/2002)
REMARK hrg set before Mag McCarthy 11/7/02 at 8:45 vbl ntc to counsel. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/06/2002)
706 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Plaintiffs by James Randall Miller (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/06/2002)
707 MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy Tele Status Hrg held; ptys agree dosc maybe unsealed with soc. sec. numbers, adresses, phone numbers redacted; ptys to confer prior to Judge Holmes' hrg to agree on list of things that will not be in pldgs filed; counsel to consult prior to hrg re verbage to protect Internal Affairs files that contain info that should not be filed; ptys agree that FOP's Mot/Decertify and attachments thereto should be unsealed. (tape #02−FHM−06 and 08) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
708 MOTION by Plaintiffs to exceed page limitation of consol resp to mtns/decert class (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
709 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to exceed page limitation of consol resp to mtns/decert class [708−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
710 JOINT MOTION by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of, intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to consolidate dates for mtn hrg (11/13 &11/14 to 11/14) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
711 CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to motion to decertify class [685−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
713 MOTION w/brf by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to stay (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 68 of 115

11/08/2002 11/08/2002 11/08/2002
11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/13/2002
11/13/2002 11/13/2002

714 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to unseal m/decertify class [689−1]; granting motion to unseal brf in opp to m/psumjgm [690−1]; denying as moot the motion (FILED UNDER SEAL) [679−1]; denying as moot the motion (FILED UNDER SEAL) [680−1]; unsealing the FOP's mot to decertify class [682−1]; unsealing the FOP's brf in oppos to pltfs' mot for partial sum jgm [681−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
715 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of, intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to [688−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
716 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 11/8/02; Prior to this hrg pties met w/MJ McCarthy &came to agrmt re: trtmt of the docs curr filed under seal and trtmt of mots or docs to be filed w/Ct in the future−pties agree tht docs curr under seal may be unsealed w/minor redactions; FOP's mot/file mot/decertify under seal (#679) and FOP's Mot/file brf/oppos to pltf's mot/PSJ under seal (#680) are moot; FOP's mot/unseal mot/decertify class (#689) and FOP's mot/unseal brf/oppos to mot/PSJ (#690) is grntd; FOP's mot/decertify class (#682) and FOP's brf/oppos to pltf's mot/PSJ (#681) are unsealed by the Ct; all docs filed under seal have been addressed by the Ct; a 4th Suppl Prot Ord was addressed &an agrmt was made by the pties−ord will be cming by COB on 11/12/02; Pltfs' mot/cont matter sched for 11/13/02 and 11/14/02 (#696) is WD by Pltf; Deft orally req cont of 11/13/02 due to Mr. Phillips unavailability−Ct den mot. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
712 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting in part &denying in part motion to consolidate dates for mtn hrg [710−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
717 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, the Crt hereby unseals the following doc #s: 442, 409, 396, 157, 156, 155, 154, 153, and 152 (See ord for details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
718 FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: (See order for details) (cc: all cnsl) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
719 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: this matter comes on to correct the Crt's 11/12/02 order [717−1] unsealing certain docs filed under seal; the Crt hereby orders that Exh "C" of the mot of the pltf Class to reconsider the Crt's ord of 8/24/01 and brf in supp 396 be unsealed in redacted form; (see order for further details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
720 REPLY by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to response to motion to decertify class [685−1], motion to decertify pltf class [682−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
721 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion to decertify class [685−1], motion to decertify class [682−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
722 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 11/13/02; Deft City of Tulsa's mot/lim (#452) will be heard at PT Conf; Intervenor FOP's mot/stay 713 pndg−Deft City has responded &Pltf announces ready to argue it today if ct desires; Deft City announces Jt Mot/Settlement Conf filed today; Argmts heard on: Deft City's APPEAL (OBJECTION) FROM MAGISTRATE'S 10/18/01 ORDER−MUA; Deft City's mot/take judicial ntc of pltf Finley's prior termination procdgs [444−1] [459−1]−MUA; Ruling on Pltf's mot/sanctions arising frm City's bad faith actns destroying the stlmt of case [614−1] is deferred for a later time; Pltfs' mot/reconsidrtn of 9/10/02 ord grnting intervention [619−1]−MUA; Pltfs' oral mot/pass the mot/sanctions [#614] to a later date−ct gr; FOP's objs to 9/24/02 &9/25/02 ord of MJ McCarthy [#655]−MUA; Pties' Jt Appl/Settlement Conf−MUA. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
723 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of, intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order for settlement conf (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
724 COMBINED RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to FOP's mot for stay of proceedings... [582−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 69 of 115

11/13/2002 11/13/2002 11/13/2002 11/14/2002 11/14/2002
11/14/2002
11/14/2002 11/15/2002 11/15/2002 11/18/2002 11/19/2002 11/19/2002 11/20/2002 11/20/2002 11/21/2002 11/22/2002

724 ...MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by defendant Tulsa, City of to stay District Court's rlgs on substantive issues (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of motion hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 9/16/02 (C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 13 ) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of motion hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 11/8/02 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 22 ) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
REMARK: rcvd courtesy copy of emerg mot of FOP for a stay of court proceedings in the district crt (to be filed in USCA) (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/14/2002 (Entered: 11/14/2002)
725 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, re jt mot for a stlmt conf [723−1]; the Crt hereby designates US District Judge Claire V Eagan as the stlmt judge in this matter, succeeding US District Judge Lee West; ptys are ordered to immediately contact the office of US District Judge Eagan to make appropriate arrangements (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
726 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 11/14/02; Argmts heard on: Pltfs' mot/PSJ [#407]−MUA; Deft City's mot/sever the supervisory Pltfs frm the class [#413]−MUA; Deft City's mot/define the temporal scope of Pltfs' section 1983, section 1981, and Title VII clms [#439]−MUA and Pltfs' req/evid hrg [#457]−MUA; Interv FOP's mot/decertify class [#682]−MUA; Deft City's mot/decertify class [#685]−MUA; Jt appl/settlement conf [#723]−gr &ord entered by ct signed by all pties &Jdg Eagan designated as settlmt jdg; PT Conf set for 10:00 a.m. on 1/8/03 and 1/9/03 . (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
727 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 10:00 1/8/03 &1/9/03 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Hrg on Mtns before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 11/13/02 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 66 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
728 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : finding the motion for hearing (stlmt conf) [617−1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/18/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Motions before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 11/14/02 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 67−175 ) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/18/2002)
729 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes overruling FOP's objs to 9/24ords of Magistrate Frank H McCarthy; FOP maintains right to call witnesses at trial (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
730 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to certify question [463−2] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
REMARK rcvd courtesy cpy of resp of pltfs to emergency mtn of Lodge #93 of the FOP for a stay of ct proceedings in dist ct (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
731 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to motion to certify question [463−2] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/21/2002)
732 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED by defendant Tulsa, City of re 11/13 &11/14 hrgs (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
733 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy : setting motion to disallow amd to Dr Ayres' rpt based upon docs identified by pltfs [314−1] HRG set for 1:30 12/6/02, setting motion to strike Dr Ayres' July 2001 suppl expert rpt [402−1] HRG set for 1:30 12/6/02, setting motion to reopen discovery as to transfer of Walter Busby [454−1] HRG set for 1:30 12/6/02, setting motion to reopen disc [604−1] HRG set for 1:30 12/6/02, setting motion to add addl witns [683−1] HRG set for 1:30 12/6/02 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/25/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 70 of 115

11/27/2002
12/02/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/05/2002
12/05/2002
12/09/2002 12/10/2002 12/10/2002 12/10/2002 12/10/2002 12/11/2002 12/11/2002

734 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, re suppl brf re hrgs of 11/13/02 and 11/14/02 [732−1]; the Crt admonishes the City and its lawyers, Joel Wohlgemuth, Chris Abernathy, Larry Simmons, and Martha Rupp Carter for their pattern and practice of misrepresenting facts and misstating the law in their filings before the Crt (cc: all counsel by fax) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
735 ORDER from USCA re: ( 10th Circuit Case No. 02−5142 &02−5154 ); City's mtn/suppl appendix is granted; pets for writ of mandamus are denied; emergency mtn for stay filed 11/15/02 is denied (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
736 JOINT MOTION by All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to stay proceedings (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
737 JOINT MOTION by All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of for apprvl &adoption of consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
738 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes :, ; STATUS HRG set for 9:00 12/5/02 re [736−1, 737−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
739 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Status hearing held 12/5/02 ; Prel identification of issues tht need to be addressed in conjunction w/Ct's consideration of the Jt Mot/Approval &Adoption of the Consent Decree [#737] &Jt Mot/Stay Procdgs [#736] filed by Pltfs &Deft City of Tulsa on 12/3/02 addressed; World Publ Co opposes protective ord portion of the consent decree − World Publ Co to submit to ct a draft proposal re: circumstances and purpose of intervention and if it should be for ltd intervention for purpose only to address the prot ord; FOP obj to consent decree; Pties to submit a joint proposal to the ct by 10:00 a.m. on 12/10/02; FOP to identify authorities on their position and assess their position; Previous Intervention &Fairness Hrgs are part of this record; Status Hrg set for 1:30 p.m. on 12/11/02 before Judge Holmes; Deadlines in the current scheduliing ord that are approaching are postponed for one week (mots/limine ddl, resp ddl, repl ddl, etc.); Hrg before MJ McCarthy that is set tomorrow is passed to Thursday or Friday after the 12/11/02 hrg n accordance to MJ McCarthy's court calendar. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
740 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, re hrg on 12/5/02; STATUS CONF set for 1:30 12/11/02 ; ptys directed to file, no later than 10:00 a.m. on 12/10/02 a jt proposal re how to proceed to ensure rights of all interested ptys; ptys ordered to submit no later than 10:00 a.m. on 12/10/02 relevant authorities re rights of FOP; the hrg on motion to add addl witns [683−1], motion to reopen disc [604−1], motion to reopen discovery as to transfer of Walter Busby [454−1], motion to strike Dr Ayres' July 2001 suppl expert rpt [402−1], motion to disallow amd to Dr Ayres' rpt based upon docs identified by pltfs [314−1] is reset for 1:30 12/12/02 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, pretrial order ddl reset for 1/3/03 (See ord for further ddls) (cc: all counsel) (seal, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Status Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 12/5/2 (C/R: G Dorrough, Pages: 25 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
741 JOINT BRIEF FILED by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of re rights of intv Lodge #93 of the FOP (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
742 BRIEF (SUGGESTION) FILED by World Publishing Co as to procedure to address access issues (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
743 JOINT RESPONSE by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of, intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to [740−3] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
744 BRIEF FILED by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Orderre FOP's right to disprv or veto consent decree in its current form (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
745 LETTER from intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order re enclosing corrected pages 3 and 4 of memorandum (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
746 BRIEF (MEMORANDUM ON THE FOP'S RIGHT TO "DISAPPROVE OR VETO" CONSENT DECREE INITS CURRENT FORM) FILED by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/2002)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 71 of 115

12/11/2002 12/11/2002
12/13/2002
12/13/2002 12/16/2002 12/16/2002
12/16/2002 12/18/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/30/2002 01/08/2003 01/08/2003

747 SUBMISSION OF NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, FAIRNESS HEARING AND RIGHT TO OBJECT by plaintiffs (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
752 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Stat Hrg held on 12/11/02; Issue whether Deft Interv FOP has the rgt to prevent the Fairness process frm procdg addressed &argmts heard−ct finds Deft Interv FOP has no auth thus ct will proceed w/procdg by NJ Trial &Fairness Hrg; Fairness Hrg set for 1/21/03 at 9:30 a.m.; Trial date of 1/21/03 is stricken &all related ddls; Hrg set on 12/12/02 bfr MJ McCarthy is stricken; Status Hrg is set for 1/9/03 at 1:30 p.m.; Ct accepts &approves the ntc; Pties have an agrd upon sched &ct approves: 12/20/02−Prel witn &exh lists frm Pltf &City due; COB on 12/13/02−City to post proposed consent decree &ntc on its bulletin board &intranet; 12/30/02−Ntc to be inclded in paycks of TPD officers; 1/8/03−Consent Decree objs from FOP due, &FOP prel witn &exh lists due as to Pltfs &City's listed witn,&FOP disc to be completed;Any mots/lim or mots related to evid issues due prior to Stat Hrg;1/20/03−FOP to prov list of any suppl or rebuttal witn &disc to be completed; 1/16/03−Consent Decree objs, other than FOP's objs, due; 1/15/03−Resp from Pltfs &City to FOP's objs due &any suppl witn &exh lists. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
748 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, re memo of FOP re right to disapprove or veto consent decree in its current form [744−1], jt memo of law re rights of intervenor [741−1] and hrg held on 12/11/02; Trial set for 1/21/03 stricken on 12/13/02; FAIRNESS HRG set for 9:30 1/21/03 ; at the fairness hrg, the Crt will consider proposed consent decree submitted w/pltfs' and the City of Tulsa's jt mot for approval and adoption of the consent decree [737−1] (cc: all counsel) (seal, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
PROPOSED Order: forwarded to: seh−j (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
749 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : finding the motion to stay [713−1] is denied as moot, the motion to stay District Court's rlgs on substantive issues [724−1] is denied as moot, the resp to mot of FOP for a stay of proceedings [724−1] is denied as moot (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
750 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : re Crt's 12/13/02 ord [748−1], striking the trial set for 1/21/03; the remaining dates in the Crt's 9/3/02 sched or [601−], as amd on 12/15/02 [740−1] are stricken; Pretrial order ddl stricken 12/16/02 ; Pretrial conference stricken 12/16/02 ; Status hearing stricken 12/16/02 ; granting motion to stay proceedings [736−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
751 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, re jt mot for approval and adoption of the consent decree [737−1] (see order for ddls and details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
753 ORDER (NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, FAIRNESS HEARING AND RIGHT TO OBJECT) by Judge Sven Erik Holmes (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
754 JOINT BRIEF FILED by All Plaintiffs &defendant Tulsa, City of re dsgn of ct witn (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
755 JOINT WITNESS list by All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
756 JOINT EXHIBIT list by All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of Status Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 12/11/02 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 62 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
757 OBJECTIONS by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to new prop consent decree (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
758 PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT list by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/09/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 72 of 115

01/08/2003 01/08/2003
01/09/2003
01/09/2003 01/14/2003
01/15/2003
01/15/2003
01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003

759 MOTION by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order for ruling on the effect of consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
760 BRIEF by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order in support of motion for ruling on the effect of consent decree [759−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
761 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes ; Status hearing held 1/9/03; FOP will supp current consent decree objs on Federalism issue; pltf will file resp to FOP mot/ruling on the effect of consent decree. (G. Dorrough ct rptr) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
762 WITNESS list by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order for fairness hrg (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
763 NOTICE (AGREED PROPOSAL REGARDING SCHEDULING MATTERS RELATED TO THE FAIRNESS HEARING TO COMMENCE ON 1/21/03) by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of, intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
764 UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to exceed page limitation of jt resp to objs of cons decree (o(sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
765 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to exceed page limitation of jt resp to objs of cons decree [764−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
766 JOINT RESPONSE by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to [757−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 01/21/2003 (Entered: 01/16/2003)
767 EXHIBITS by plaintiff All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of in support of response [766−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
768 OBJECTION by Gina Suideri to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
769 OBJECTION by E Jack Hester to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
770 OBJECTION by L.A. Mullin to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
771 OBJECTION by Justin Ritter to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
772 OBJECTION by S Dean to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
773 OBJECTION by JP Kelley to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
774 OBJECTION by Jeff T Downs to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
775 OBJECTION by William H Henkins Jr to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
776 OBJECTION by Aaron H Tallman to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
777 OBJECTION by Kevin V Warne to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
778 OBJECTION by Joel T Spitler to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
779 OBJECTION by Paul A Melchior to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 73 of 115

01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003

780 OBJECTION by George M Dunham to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
781 OBJECTION by Dale J Freancetic to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
782 OBJECTION by John Wilson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
783 OBJECTION by Carl J Small to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
784 OBJECTION by Timothy A Means to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
785 OBJECTION by SL Sanders to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
786 OBJECTION by Jason R Lawless to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
787 OBJECTION by Kurt Dodd to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
788 OBJECTION by Gene A Hogan to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
789 OBJECTION by Lance L Eberle to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
790 OBJECTION by Jason R White to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
791 OBJECTION by Guy D Stapleton to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
792 OBJECTION by David G Best to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
793 OBJECTION by Richard A Alexander to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
794 OBJECTION by Nathan Schilling to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
795 OBJECTION by L A Denson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
796 OBJECTION by Jason Willingham to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
797 OBJECTION by Tonya C Bull to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
798 OBJECTION by Joshua Martin to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
799 OBJECTION by Joel P Ward to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
800 OBJECTION by David C Davis to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
801 OBJECTION by Richard A Bondy to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
802 OBJECTION by ME Parsons to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
803 OBJECTION by Regina Tuell to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 74 of 115

01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003

804 OBJECTION by Don R Deramus to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
805 OBJECTION by Sara O'Mara to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
806 OBJECTION by Daniel Ray Miller to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
807 OBJECTION by Eric J Nelson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
808 OBJECTION by Susan Ha to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
809 OBJECTION by Curtis J Jackson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
810 OBJECTION by Martin Andrew Drobinko to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
811 OBJECTION by Robert Keith Fallis to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
812 OBJECTION by Stephen Keith Middleton to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
813 OBJECTION by Robert D Johnson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
814 OBJECTION by Steven Neal Malone to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
815 OBJECTION by David O Winter to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
816 OBJECTION by Marcella S Brannon to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
817 OBJECTION by Timothy J Stendel to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
818 OBJECTION by Richard T Walker to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
819 OBJECTION by Brian K Williams to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
820 OBJECTION by JW Johnson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
821 OBJECTION by Tim D Wilson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
822 OBJECTION by Wendell Franklin to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
823 OBJECTION by Adam Woodard to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
824 OBJECTION by Brian Comfort to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
825 OBJECTION by Janet Miller to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
826 OBJECTION by Alex L Chambers to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
827 OBJECTION by Christopher M O'Keefe to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 75 of 115

01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003

828 OBJECTION by John G Huehner to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
829 OBJECTION by Christopher T Moudy to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
830 OBJECTION by Marnie L Waller to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
831 OBJECTION by Shannon Kepler to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
832 OBJECTION by JT Beauchamp to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
833 OBJECTION by Matthew E Driskill to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
834 OBJECTION by Ronald T Jones to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
835 OBJECTION by Eric L Malldry to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
836 OBJECTION by Margaret E Loveall to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
837 OBJECTION by John W Sherrill to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
838 OBJECTION by Darrell Whithem to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
839 OBJECTION by DN Farmer to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
840 OBJECTION by Scott Anderson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
841 OBJECTION by Debra E Glenn to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
842 OBJECTION by Tom J Milburn to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
843 OBJECTION by Rex A Mann to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
844 OBJECTION by Tim E Lawson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
845 OBJECTION by Bruce Burton to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
846 OBJECTION by Israel Rodriguez to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
847 OBJECTION by Johnny Lee Adams to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
848 OBJECTION by Stephen P Boyes to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
849 OBJECTION by Thomas Sherman to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
850 OBJECTION by Harry Gerard Stege to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
851 OBJECTION by Sherry L Stallings to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 76 of 115

01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003

852 OBJECTION by Quentin Houck to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
853 OBJECTION by Jeri A Tucker to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
854 OBJECTION by Tommy Terneus to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
855 OBJECTION by Kerry Whitten to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
856 OBJECTION by Samuel M Irwin to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
857 OBJECTION by Timothy J Lewandowski to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
858 OBJECTION by Felicia Gossett to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
859 OBJECTION by Gregory D Evans to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
860 OBJECTION by William J Bonham to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
861 OBJECTION by WH Wolthuis to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
862 OBJECTION by Jeff Eddings to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
863 OBJECTION by Brian D Blair to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
864 OBJECTION by TA Maurer to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
865 OBJECTION by Curtis W Haley to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
866 OBJECTION by Whitney R Mauldin to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
867 OBJECTION by Richard Meulenberg to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
868 OBJECTION by Scott Murphy to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
869 OBJECTION by DW Smasal to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
870 OBJECTION by Todd M Snedegar to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
871 OBJECTION by Michael P Griffin to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
872 OBJECTION by Todd A Taylor to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
873 OBJECTION by Tracie Crocker to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
874 OBJECTION by Victoria Smedley to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
875 OBJECTION by Dianna Liedorff to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 77 of 115

01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003

876 OBJECTION by Terry Sue Laymon−Barnett to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
877 OBJECTION by Ronald Edward O'Dell to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
878 OBJECTION by Michael Eckert to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
879 OBJECTION by Harold D Adair to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
880 OBJECTION by TL Barbee to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
881 OBJECTION by Mark Groves to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
882 OBJECTION by Mark A Watson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
883 OBJECTION by Matt Harker to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
884 OBJECTION by Christopher S Tuell to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
885 OBJECTION by Michael T Brown to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
886 OBJECTION by Virgil E Litterell to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
887 OBJECTION by Steven L Dickson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
888 OBJECTION by Deanna Leigh Phillips to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
889 OBJECTION by Jeff Olomon to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
890 OBJECTION by David Daugherty to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
891 OBJECTION by Edward W Buckspan to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
892 OBJECTION by Christy Kellerhals to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
893 OBJECTION by David Howard Burr to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
894 OBJECTION by Harry W Hunt to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
895 OBJECTION by David M Brockman to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
896 OBJECTION by Shane Hickey to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
897 OBJECTION by Paul F Williams to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
898 OBJECTION by Brett Thomas Quellen Williams to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
899 OBJECTION by CM Butterfreud to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 78 of 115

01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003

900 OBJECTION by KM Whitehead to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
901 OBJECTION by CE Piercy to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
902 OBJECTION by EB Bonham to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
903 OBJECTION by Joshua J Ledbetter to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
904 OBJECTION by Bryan K Smith to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
905 OBJECTION by Brian James Hill to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
906 OBJECTION by Justin C Demaree to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
907 OBJECTION by Gary Neece to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
908 OBJECTION by Terrence Campbell to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
909 OBJECTION by Ross Ford to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
910 OBJECTION by Stacy Kelly to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
911 OBJECTION by Thomas E Rink to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
912 OBJECTION by Brett H Bilyeu to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
913 OBJECTION by Matthew A Hart to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
914 OBJECTION by Chad Moyer to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
915 OBJECTION by Gary E Upton to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
916 OBJECTION by Travis Yates to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
917 OBJECTION by Alan Westerman to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
918 OBJECTION by Matthew Kirkland to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
919 OBJECTION by Ricardo Aguilar to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
920 OBJECTION by Douglas A Brown to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
921 OBJECTION by PF Thompson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
922 OBJECTION by Clinton W Jordan to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
923 OBJECTION by SG Douglas to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 79 of 115

01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003

924 OBJECTION by James W Bohanon to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
925 OBJECTION by Gordon L Fish to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
926 OBJECTION by David Hickman to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
927 OBJECTION by Steve Ham to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
928 OBJECTION by Angela M Stow to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
929 OBJECTION by Ronnie LeathermanII to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
930 OBJECTION by Douglas B Clark to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
931 OBJECTION by Dale S Danks to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
932 OBJECTION by John Craig Murray to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
933 OBJECTION by Paul Campbell Fields to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
934 OBJECTION by Stephen Carr to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
935 OBJECTION by William D Dalsing to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
936 OBJECTION by Alicia Marie Maurer to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
937 OBJECTION by David Brice to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
938 OBJECTION by Sarah Vas to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
939 OBJECTION by Susannah Ralston to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
940 OBJECTION by Melissa C Hart to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
941 OBJECTION by Anthony R First to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
942 OBJECTION by Justin Aldridge to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
943 OBJECTION by BJ Dean to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
944 OBJECTION by Chris Haney to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
945 OBJECTION by John C Darden to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
946 OBJECTION by Larry Wolfe to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
947 OBJECTION by RW Solomon to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 80 of 115

01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003

948 OBJECTION by DC Harrison to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
949 OBJECTION by JD Cozad to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
950 OBJECTION by NC Cory to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
951 OBJECTION by KM Dhrynowicz to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
952 OBJECTION by Mark Kraft to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
953 OBJECTION by Greg Mitchell to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
954 OBJECTION by JT Gatwood to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
955 OBJECTION by Thomas F Fees to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
956 OBJECTION by Kirk L Montgomery to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
957 OBJECTION by William MacKenzie to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
958 OBJECTION by Mark Alan Sole to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
959 OBJECTION by Todd M Evans to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
960 OBJECTION by Danielle K Bishop to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
961 OBJECTION by James F Clark to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
962 OBJECTION by Antonia Rhae Hill to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
963 OBJECTION by P Suzanne Jordan−Simmons to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
964 OBJECTION by David M Young to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
965 OBJECTION by John R Knighten to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
966 OBJECTION by RF Randolph Jr to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
967 OBJECTION by Eric Leverington to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
968 OBJECTION by Matt Farrell to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
969 OBJECTION by Daniel Embrey to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
970 OBJECTION by Dean L Montgomery to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
971 OBJECTION by William V Ellis to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 81 of 115

01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003 01/17/2003
01/17/2003
01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003

972 OBJECTION by Lusley R Young to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
973 OBJECTION by Demita G Kinard to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
974 OBJECTION by Craig Lagrone to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
975 OBJECTION by Brandon J Watkins to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
976 OBJECTION by Joe Ryan Perkins to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
977 RESPONSE by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to [761−2] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
978 OBJECTION by Jeff Davis to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
979 OBJECTION by Kathy J Harrel to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
980 OBJECTION by Clayton Asbill to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
981 OBJECTION by David Atkinson to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
982 OBJECTION by Howard L Cunningham to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
983 OBJECTION by Gary D Fritts to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
984 OBJECTION by SA Wiliams to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
985 OBJECTION by Marshall K Luton Jr to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
986 CERTIFICATE by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of of svc re objs (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
987 MOTION by World Publishing Co to intervene ... (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
987 RESPONSE (OPP) by World Publishing Co to proto &oth portion of stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
988 JOINT NOTICE (STATEMENT) by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of, intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order re individual objectors (dcap, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
989 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : ; MISCELLANEOUS HRG set for 10:00 1/22/03 and for 1/23/03 re [763−1 &988−1] (see min ord for further ddlns) (cc: all counsel) (dcap, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
990 OBJECTION by Ron Bartmier to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
991 OBJECTION by Gene Watkins to prop stlmt &consent decree (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
992 REPLY by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order re [766−1], re [757−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
994 NOTICE (LIST OF OBJECTORS WISHING TO TESTIFY) by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 82 of 115

01/21/2003 01/21/2003
01/22/2003 01/23/2003 01/27/2003 01/27/2003 01/27/2003 01/27/2003

995 CERTIFICATE by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of svc (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)

996 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Fairness Hearing held 1/21/03 ; Ct addresses w/the pties how best to proceed with the Fairness Hrg and the three issues to be addressed: (1) Sched of witn to testify; (2) Proposed Intervenor World Publ Co's Mot/Intervene &Opposition to the Protective Order and Other Portion of the Settlement and Consent Decree (Dkt #987) filed on 1/16/03 − Ct sets hrg on this matter for 1/23/03 at 9:00 a.m.; and (3) Appropriate method of introducing testimony of the individual objectors − FOP as the agt for these objectors is to file no later than 4:00 p.m. today a stmt that identifies the names of the individuals that desire to testify at the Fairness Hrg; Proposed Ct schedule addressed; Proposed Interv World Publ Co states it takes no position on the approval of the consent decree; Evid presented in the form of testimony of witn by the Pltfs and City of Tulsa; Pltf moves for admission of Exhs #1, #2 &#3−no obj−Ct adm; Schedule addressed in regards to objectors−so far only one objector wishes to testify in person at the Fairness Hrg − filed objections will be considered as if formal oral testimony in court was performed. DAY TWO: 1/22/03 = Ct resets the hrg on World Publ Co's Mot/Interv &Opposition to the Prot Ord &Other Portion of the Sttlmt &Consent Decree for 1/28/03 at 9:00 a.m.; World Publ to submit no later than noon on 1/24/03 a wrttn proposal and proposed consent decree to the pties; pties are to confer before 1/28/03 re: the proposals.; Ct will enter a Minute Order by midday 1/22/03; One individual objector, Ms. Liedorff appears and states that she does not wish to testify; Ct recesses until 9:00 a.m. on 1/27/03. [See Minutes of 1/27/03 for Witness &Exhibit Lists](G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)

993 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : setting (continuing) motion to intervene [987−1] HRG set for 9:00 1/28/03 (see min ord for further instr) (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)

997 JOINT RESPONSE by plaintiff All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to motion for ruling on the effect of consent decree [759−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

998 NOTICE (DESIGNATION OF TRANSCRIPTS) by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/28/2003)

999 NOTICE (DESIGNATIONS OF TESTIMONY FROM THE PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE FIRST PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE) by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/28/2003)

1000 REPLY by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to response to motion for ruling on the effect of consent decree [759−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/28/2003)

1002

MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Fairness Hrg contin on 1/27/03; Pltfs &Deft City of Tulsa cont in pres evid in the form of testmny/witn; Pltfs &Deft City of Tulsa's Jt Exh #4 offered &adm; Pltfs &Deft City of Tulsa rest; Interv Deft FOP pres evid in the form of testmny/ witn; Interv Deft FOP req/put on fin witn aftr Mot Hrg on Prop Interv World Publ Co's Mot; Desgntns have been filed by pties; Exhs rtned to pties; Ct retains only VCR tape portion of Pltfs &Deft City of Tulsa's Jt Exh #4; Mot Hrg set for 9:00 a.m. on 1/28/03;1/28/03=Mot Hrg on Propos Interv World Publ Co's Mot/Interv &Oppos/Prot Ord &Othr Portions/Sttlmt &Consent Decree held; Prot Ord addressed; Argmts heard on Mot; Evid pres by Propos Interv World Publ Co w/testmny/witn−MUA; Draft of propos prot ord due by COB on 2/5/03; Fairness Hrg contin w/Interv Deft FOP pres evid in the form of testmny/witn.; 1/29/03=Fairness Hrg cont; Stipul re: arbitr orally subm &adm; FOP Exhs #1− 4, 11−15, 20, 60−80 offered−no obj−admitted; Deft Exh #74 (arbitr awrd) was entered in earlier hrg; FOP rests; pties rest; propos prot ord due frm Propos Interv World Publ Co by 2/5/03; brfing re: publ access issues raised by Propos Interv World Publ Co due by 2/7/03; post−hrg brfs w/citatins to the record due by 2/12/03 &resp due by 2/19/03; Min Ord re: brfing sched will be entered today; Orig Exhs rtnd to pties EXCEPT Vid Tape (Jt #4 of Pltfs &Deft City of Tulsa) is retained by the ct.(G.Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 01/30/2003 (Entered: 01/30/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 83 of 115

01/29/2003 02/03/2003 02/03/2003 02/03/2003 02/05/2003 02/05/2003 02/05/2003 02/07/2003 02/07/2003 02/07/2003 02/07/2003 02/07/2003 02/10/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/14/2003

1001 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes re 1/28/03 fairness hrg brfg (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hrg VOL II before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 1/22/03 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 239−322 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 02/04/2003 (Entered: 02/03/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hrg VOL III before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 1/27/3 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 323−522 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hrg VOL I before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 1/21/03 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 238 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hrg VOL IV before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 1/28/03 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 523−706 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 02/06/2003 (Entered: 02/05/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hrg VOL V before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 1/29/03 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 707−786 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
1003 NOTICE (SUBMISSION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER) by World Publishing Co (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
1004 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of, intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order, World Publishing Co to extend time to 2/12/03 to file brfs (o/j) re public access issues (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
1005 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to extend time to 2/12/03 to file brfs re public access issues [1004−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
1006 NOTICE (STATEMENT) by Plaintiffs re public access issues raised by World Publishing Co (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
1007 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to extend time to 2/12/03 to file stmts re public access issues raised by World Publishing Co (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Status Conf before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 1/9/03 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 21 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
1008 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : finding the motion to extend time to 2/12/03 to file stmts re public access issues raised by World Publishing Co [1007−1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
1009 POST HEARING BRIEF FILED by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
1010 EXHIBITS (ATTACHMENTS) by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order in to post hrg brf [1009−1] (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
1011 JOINT POST−HRG BRIEF FILED by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
1012 OBJECTION by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to protective ord proposed by Tulsa World [1003−1] (o/mj−FHM) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 02/13/2003 (Entered: 02/13/2003)
1013 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED by World Publishing Co on public access issues (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
1014 BRIEF FILED by defendant Tulsa, City of re the public access issues raised by the World Publishing Co (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
1015 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes directin ptys to immediately contact Judge Claire V Eagan to sched a stlmt conf re public acess issues raised by World Pub Co (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/14/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 84 of 115

02/18/2003 02/19/2003 02/19/2003 02/24/2003 02/24/2003 02/25/2003 02/25/2003 02/26/2003 03/05/2003 03/07/2003 05/08/2003 05/12/2003 05/13/2003 05/14/2003 05/14/2003 05/15/2003
05/20/2003 05/21/2003

1016 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V. Eagan at the direction of Judge Sven Erik Holmes: SETTLMT CONF set for 9:00 2/20/03 before Judge Claire V. Eagan (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/19/2003)

1017 REPLY by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order re [1011−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/20/2003)

1018 JOINT RESPONSE by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to FOP's post−hrg brf [1009−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/20/2003)

1019 OBJECTIONS by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to protective ord prop by Tulsa World on 2/24/03 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/2003)

1020 NOTICE (JOINT STATEMENT OF CORRECTION) by plaintiff All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/2003)

1021 NOTICE (JOINT SUBMISSION) by defendant Tulsa, City of, World Publishing Co re prop protective ord (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/2003)

1022 REPLY by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to jt statement of correction [1020−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/26/2003)

1023 NOTICE (CONTENTIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION ON THE PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER) by World Publishing Co (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/27/2003)

1024 SUPPLEMENT by defendant Tulsa, City of re brief [1014−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/05/2003)

1025 REPLY by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to City's suppl stmt re Tulsa World's mot for protective ord [1014−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/10/2003)

REMARK: Jt Exh #4 (VCR Tape) rtnd to Pltf Couns Louis Bullock. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/08/2003)

1026 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion for apprvl &adoption of consent decree [737−1]; the consent decree is approved (cc: all counsel) (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 05/14/2003 (Entered: 05/13/2003)

1027 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes finding the motion for ruling on the effect of consent decree [759−1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/13/2003)

1028 ORDER (CONSENT DECREE) by Judge Sven Erik Holmes (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 9/9/2010; Document TERMINATED per Judgment # 1539 (tjc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 05/14/2003)

1029 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes order ptys to commence discussion re implementation of consent decree (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/14/2003)

1030

ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to intervene [987−1] for limited purpose of seeking to ensure that the protective ord to be entered pursuant to the Consent Decree provides appropriate public access to docs related to and created under the Consent Decree; finding the motion to intervene [540−1] moot. finding the motion to intervene [675−1] moot; the Crt will enter the attached protective ord in accordance w/implementation of Section 27.6 of the Consent Decree (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/15/2003)

1031 NOTICE (JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING COMPOSITION OF THE DISPUTE AVOIDANCE AND RESOLUTION COMMITTEE) by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/21/2003)

1032 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, re jt submission re composition of the dispute avoidance and resolution committee [1031−1]; pltfs and City are directed to identify no later than 5/28/03 9 addtl citizens who are willing/able to serve on committee (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/21/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 85 of 115

05/21/2003 05/21/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003 05/23/2003
05/23/2003 05/27/2003
05/27/2003 05/27/2003
05/27/2003 05/27/2003 05/28/2003 05/28/2003 05/29/2003
05/29/2003 05/30/2003 05/30/2003

1033 NOTICE (AMENDED JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING COMPOSITION OF THE DISPUTE AVOIDANCE AND RESOLUTION COMMITTEE) by plaintiff All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
1034 MOTION by Plaintiffs for exp discovery as to issue of atty fees (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
1035 NOTICE OF APPEAL to USCA by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order from District Court decision [1028−1], [1026−1] ( fees paid/cnsl/forms given ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
1037 MOTION w/brf by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to stay pending app (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
APPEAL FEE PAID IN FULL by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order on 5/22/03 in amount of $ 105.00 receipt # 107407 re [1035−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
1036 PRELIMINARY RECORD on Appeal sent to USCA re: appeal [1035−1] (Includes: Docket Sheet, Notice of Appeal, and Decision being appealed) (cc: all counsel) (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 05/28/2003 (Entered: 05/23/2003)
1038 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes setting motion to stay pending app [1037−1] HRG set for 2:00 5/29/03; resp to mtn/stay due by 4:00 pm 5/28/03 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
1039 SUPPLEMENTED PRELIMINARY RECORD on Appeal sent to USCA re: appeal [1035−1] (Includes: Pages missing from Docket Sheet &missing Notice of Appeal) (cc: all counsel, faxed to Opal at 10th) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
1040 MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by plaintiff All Plaintiffs for attorney fees (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
1041 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, dfdt City of Tulsa is ordered to resp to pltfs' motion for attorney fees [1040−1] no later than noon on 5/29/03; pltfs and City ordered to attend a SETTLMT CONF set for 9:00 5/30/03 before Judge Claire V. Eagan (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
1042 BILL OF COSTS submitted by plaintiff All Plaintiffs against defendant Tulsa, City of requesting costs in the amount of $ 17,460.41 ; COST HRG set for 10:00 6/24/03 before the Court Clerk (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
1043 EXHIBITS (ATTACHMENTS) by Plaintiffs in support of motion for attorney fees [1040−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
1044 JOINT RESPONSE by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to motion to stay pending app [1037−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 05/29/2003 (Entered: 05/29/2003)
1045 NOTICE (JT SUBM PER TO THIS CT'S ORD OF 5/21/03) by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
1046 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 5/29/03 on Interv Deft FOP's Mot/stay pending appeal [1037−1]−Argmts heard−MUA−Written resp due by COB on 6/3/03 frm FOP. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
1047 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion for attorney fees [1040−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
1048 UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of for leave to file suppl brf (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
1049 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT by Judge Claire V. Eagan ; settlement conference held 5/30/03 ; advising litigation was not settled (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/30/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 86 of 115

05/30/2003 06/02/2003 06/02/2003 06/02/2003 06/02/2003
06/02/2003 06/02/2003
06/02/2003 06/02/2003 06/02/2003 06/03/2003 06/03/2003 06/03/2003 06/04/2003 06/05/2003 06/06/2003

1050 MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs for expedited hearing (on mo/atty fees) (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

1051 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting jt motion for leave to file suppl brf [1048−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

1052 MOTION by Plaintiffs to allow trial depo to be taken of pltfs' fee expert (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

1053 SUPPLEMENT by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of re motion response [1044−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

1054

ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion for exp discovery as to issue of atty fees [1034−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion for expedited hearing (on mo/atty fees) [1050−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to allow trial depo to be taken of pltfs' fee expert [1052−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

1055 MINUTES: Tele hrg held by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to allow trial depo to be taken of pltfs' fee expert [1052−1] subject to the limitied issue of market rates and that expert prov any supporting ddocs nolater than 6/3/03 a.m. (tape #03−FHM−5) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

1056

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : finding the motion for partial summary judgment [407−1] moot., finding the motion to sever supervisory pltfs from the class [413−1] moot., finding the APPEAL (OBJECTION) FROM MAGISTRATE'S ORDER [424−1] [436−1] moot., finding the motion to define the temporal scope of pltfs' Section 1983, Section 1981, and Title VII clms [439−1] moot., finding the motion to take judicial ntc of pltf Finley's prior termination proceedings [444−1] moot., finding the motion in limine to exclude testimony of pltfs' exp witn Goble [452−1] moot., finding the motion to take judicial ntc of pltf Finley's prior term procdgs [459−1] moot., finding the motion in limine re testimony of pltfs' exp wit Goble [458−1] moot., finding the motion for evidentiary hearing [457−1] moot., finding the motion for reconsideration of 11/20/01 ord [463−1] moot., finding the motion to certify question [463−2] moot., finding the motion for sanctions arising from City's bad faith actions destroying the stlmt of this case [614−1] moot., finding the motion for reconsideration of ord of 9/10/02 gr intervention [619−1] moot., finding the motion (FILED UNDER SEAL) (O/J) [682−1] moot., finding the motion to decertify class [685−1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/03/2003)

1057 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 03−5086 (#1035 cv cnsl/pd) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/03/2003)

1058 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to [1052−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/03/2003)

1059 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion for exp discovery as to issue of atty fees [1034−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/03/2003)

1060 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion for expedited hearing (on mo/atty fees) [1050−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/03/2003)

1061 REPLY by Plaintiffs to response to motion for expedited hearing (on mo/atty fees) [1050−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/03/2003)

1062 REPLY by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to response to motion to stay pending app [1037−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/03/2003)

1063 REPLY by Plaintiffs re [1050−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/2003)

1064 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for order requiring atty fee discovery (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2003)

1065 RESPONSE by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to motion for order requiring atty fee discovery [1064−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 87 of 115

06/06/2003
06/06/2003 06/06/2003 06/09/2003
06/09/2003 06/09/2003 06/10/2003 06/11/2003
06/11/2003
06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/13/2003
06/16/2003 06/17/2003 06/18/2003 06/18/2003

1066 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM (TOF) by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order for dates: 4/24/2, 9/18/2, 9/24/2, 11/7/2, 5/29/3, 5/30/3 re: appeal [1035−1] ( 10th Circuit Case No. 03−5086 ) ; transcript(s) due 7/18/03 ( Court Rptr: G Dorrough ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2003)

1067 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff All Plaintiffs re motion for attorney fees [1040−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2003)

1068 MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs for reconsideration ord re: mo/sanctions moot and brf/spprt (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2003)

1069

MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion for order requiring atty fee discovery [1064−1]; deft to prov time records to pltf; if obj by Tulsa World to PO, ptys to call for a phone hrg or return in person for hrg; if no obj, ptys to prepare PO; ptys to take 3 mo snapshot of billing records for Lissau and Blakemore to other clients; deft will give pltf the particular 3 mo period; both sides presented arguments as to when fee hrg should be held; taking under advisement on 6/9/03 the motion for expedited hearing (on mo/atty fees) [1050−1] (tape #03−C2−13) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/09/2003)

1070 SUPPLEMENT by defendant Tulsa, City of re motion response [1060−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/10/2003)

1071 REPLY by plaintiffs to response to motion for attorney fees [1040−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/10/2003)

1072 SECOND SUPPLEMENT by plaintiffs to motion for attorney fees [1040−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/11/2003)

1073

MINUTES: EXPEDITED PHONE CALL ON Plf oral mot to quash subs. by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy, Statements made, Court grants Plf mot to quash Deft 2 subs. Pltf to produce by Friday morning, Exchange Defts time records predicated on agreed prot o to be submitted tommrow am, Should parties need subs they may call MJ or file mot. (Tape 03−FHM−6) (hbo, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/11/2003)

MAIL RETURNED addressed to Guinise Marie Marshall ia 527 NW 23rd, OKC OK 73103 re bill of cost hrg (rts − wrong address); called phone # listed for terminated atty Marshall (405−525−8600), phone disconnected, Marshall once represented pltf, pltf also has untermed cnsl (forwarded to file) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/2003)

1074 RENEWED MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to expedite hrg of their atty fee mot (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/2003)

1075 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : (cc: all cnsl) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/2003)

1076 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT by Judge Claire V. Eagan: the ptys will require an addtl day to either identify a person as independent auditor or file a m/seeking to ext time period otherwise provided in Consent Decree (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/16/2003)

1077 NOTICE (JOINT PROPOSAL FOR SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR) by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/17/2003)

1078 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion for reconsideration ord re: mo/sanctions moot [1068−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/18/2003)

1079 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes denying motion to stay pending app [1037−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/18/2003)

1080

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion for expedited hearing (on mo/atty fees) [1050−1]; granting motion to expedite hrg of their atty fee mot [1074−1]; SCHEDULING CONFERENCE set for 2:00 6/26/03 to addr schedule w/respect to pltfs' m/atty fees [1040−1], the Crt will also address pltfs' mot to reconsider Crt's ord holding pltfs' mot for sanctions moot [1068−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/18/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 88 of 115

06/18/2003 06/23/2003
06/23/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003 06/23/2003 06/24/2003 06/24/2003 06/24/2003 06/25/2003 06/25/2003 06/25/2003 06/26/2003
06/26/2003
06/26/2003 06/27/2003

TRANSCRIPT of Mtn Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 5/29/03 ( Re: appeal [1035−1] ) ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 49 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/19/2003)

REMARK: rcvd from FOP a courtesy copy of the following: ltr from FOP to cnsl re mot for a stay pndg appeal and memo of law being filed w/USCA, ltr from FOP to USCA, mot for FOP for a stay pndg appeal and memo of law, volume I exhs to mot, volume II exhs to mot (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/23/2003)

TRANSCRIPT of Proceeding before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 4/24/02 ( Re: appeal [1035−1] ) ( C/R: Terri Beeler, Pages: 11 ) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/24/2003)

1081 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file amd mot for attys fees (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/24/2003)

1082 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to compel answers to depo questions (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/24/2003)

1083 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to compel answers to depo questions [1082−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/24/2003)

1084 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file a trial brf re reasonableness of pltfs' fee request (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/24/2003)

1085 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to motion to compel answers to depo questions [1082−1] (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/25/2003)

1086 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to approve proposed notice as to individual remedies (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/25/2003)

1089 ORDER ON COSTS by Court Clerk for plaintiffs in the amount of $ 17,460.41 against defendant Tulsa, City of (cc: all cnsl) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/26/2003)

1087 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, re jt proposal for selection of independent auditor [1077−1]; the Crt appoints John A Gaberino, Jr. as Independent Auditor (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/25/2003)

1088 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to approve proposed notice as to individual remedies [1086−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/25/2003)

1090 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S MISSTATEMENT AND FAILURE TO CURE by defendant Tulsa, City of (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/26/2003)

1091 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, re amd jt submission re composition of the dispute avoidance and resolution committee [1033−1] and the jt submission pursuant to Crt's ord of 5/21/03 [1045−1]; (See ord for details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/26/2003)

1092

MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Sched Conf held 6/26/03 ;Ct informs pties that Ct has appted John A. Gaberino, Jr. as Indep Auditor and appted Jono Helmerick, Paula Marshall−Chapman &Wayman Tisdale to Disp Avdnce &Resol Comm; Pltfs' Mot/Reconsd of Ct's Ord re: Pltfs' Mot/Sanctns Moot [Dkt. #1068]−den; Pltfs' Mot/Lv/File Amnd Mot/Attys Fees [Dkt. #1081]−den; Pltfs' Mot/Lv/File TB re: Reas/Pltfs' Fee Req [Dkt. #1084]−gr; Simultan TBs due 7/16/03 w/simultan subm/exhs due 7/18/03; Hrg: 7/21/03 at 2:00 p.m. &if nec. cont to 7/22/03 at 2:00 p.m.; Deft's Mot/Compel Answ to Depos Qustns [Dkt. #1082] ref to MJ; Pties agree no resp will be filed. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/27/2003)

1093 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to plaintiff's application for leave of court to file amended motion for attorneys fees [1081−1] (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/27/2003)

1094 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to compel answers to depo questions [1082−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/30/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 89 of 115

07/08/2003 07/08/2003 07/08/2003 07/08/2003 07/08/2003 07/09/2003 07/11/2003 07/14/2003
07/14/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003
07/16/2003 07/16/2003

1095 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed page limitation of trial brf re atty fees (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/08/2003)

TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy for date(s) of: 9/18/02 ( Re: appeal [1035−1] ) ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 5 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/09/2003)

TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy for date(s) of: 9/24/02 ( Re: appeal [1035−1] ) ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 29 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/09/2003)

TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy for date(s) of: 11/7/02 ( Re: appeal [1035−1] ) ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 23 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/09/2003)

1096 LETTER from ct rptr; app trans are complete (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/09/2003)

1097 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to exceed page limitation of trial brf re atty fees [1095−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/09/2003)

1098 CLERK'S RECORD ON APPEAL sent to USCA re: appeal [1035−1] ( 10th Circuit Case No. 03−5086 ) (ltr mld to all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/11/2003)

1099

MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy; exp hearing held re fee issue; Ms. Coulter is directed to look for, redact, and copy for Mr. Wohlgemuth the back−up docs used for computer computation for specified time records and to produce computer programs for time records. Ptys to notify the court if problem arises after pty's 4:00 consultation today. tape #03−C2−18 (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/14/2003)

1100 UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to exceed page limitation of trial brf (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/14/2003)

PROPOSED Protective Order re: forwarded to: fhm−mj (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/15/2003)

1101 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to exceed page limitation of trial brf [1100−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/16/2003)

1102 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE COMPENSATION PAID TO BULLOCK &BULLOCK EMPLOYEES by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy : (cc: all cnsl) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/16/2003)

1103 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to compel prod/docs (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/16/2003)

1104 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to compel prod/docs [1103−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/16/2003)

1105 NOTICE REGARDING STATUS OF COMPLIANCE W/COURT'S ORDER OF JULY 14 by defendant Tulsa, City of (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/16/2003)

1106

MINUTES: Tele hrg held by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy denying motion to compel prod/docs [1103−1] based on rep made at this hearing; deft is permitted to req that doc be subm to ct "in−camera" for ct's review; finding the notice [1105−1] moot based upon rep made at this hrg; depo of Jean Coulter to fo forward. tape #03−FHM−6) Ct rptr at depo Tammi Shipman (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/16/2003)

1107 MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to extend time to file trl brf re atty fees until 7/17/03 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/16/2003)

1108 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to extend time to file trl brf re atty fees until 7/17/03 [1107−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/16/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 90 of 115

07/16/2003 07/16/2003 07/16/2003 07/16/2003 07/16/2003 07/17/2003 07/17/2003 07/17/2003 07/17/2003 07/17/2003 07/18/2003 07/18/2003 07/21/2003 07/21/2003 07/21/2003
07/21/2003
07/24/2003 07/28/2003 07/31/2003 08/04/2003

1109 MOTION by plaintiffs to supplement trial brf in supp of fee application (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/16/2003)

1110 MOTION by plaintiffs to supplement appendix to fee applic (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/16/2003)

1111 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to supplement appendix to fee applic [1110−1], granting motion to supplement trial brf in supp of fee application [1109−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/17/2003)

1112 WITNESS list by defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/17/2003)

1113 TRIAL BRIEF by defendant Tulsa, City of re pltfs' mtn/atty fees (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/17/2003)

1114 TRIAL BRIEF by Plaintiffs re atty fees (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/18/2003)

1115 EXHIBITS by Plaintiffs re [1114−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 07/18/2003 (Entered: 07/18/2003)

1116 SUPPLEMENTAL TRIAL BRIEF by counsel for All Plaintiffs, Jean Walpole Coulter (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/18/2003)

1117 SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX by Plaintiffs re [1040−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/18/2003)

1118 SEALED DOCUMENT (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/18/2003)

TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hrg before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 4/11/97 ( Re: appeal [1035−1] ) ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 17 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/18/2003)

1119 MOTION by Plaintiffs in limine re comp paid to Bullock &Bullock emplys (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/21/2003)

1120 MOTION by Plaintiffs in limine &enforcement of LR 16.2(i) re pltfs' 4/02 fee stlmt offer (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/21/2003)

1121 EXHIBIT list by defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/21/2003)

MAIL RETURNED: [1098−1] addressed to plaintiff, Roy Johnson's previous cnsl, Robert Issac Mayes, Jr. at: P O Box 6247, Tulsa, OK 74148−0427 (wrong box); atty disbarred; unable to locate current addr − forwarded to file (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 07/22/2003 (Entered: 07/22/2003)

1122

MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Mot Hrg held on 7/21/03 &7/22/03; Argmts heard on: (1) Pltfs' mot/lim &enforcement of LR 16.2(i) re: pltfs' 4/02 fee stlmt offer [1120−1]−ct grnts; (2) Pltfs' mot/lim re: comp pd to Bullock &Bullock emplys [1119−1]−Deft agrd to limit this portion of evid to leg asst/paralegal time−ct finds this evid is cumulative excluded; Deft stipulates to Atty Pat Cremin's hourly fee; Pties agree to submit on brfs: (1) whether time expended in resp to FOP is legally compensable &(2) whether Pltfs are entitled to enhancement−stipulate that Pltf is prevailing party; Argmts heard on Pltfs' mot/atty fees [#1040] w/testmny of witn &exhs; Exhs adm; Ct bifurcates the rate issues and hrly issues; Hrly issues referred to MJ McCarthy; Evid is completed today on the rate issues &MUA. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/23/2003)

1123 SUPPLEMENT by defendant Tulsa, City of re brief [1113−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/25/2003)

1124 LETTER from USCA re: appeal [1035−1] ( 10th Circuit Case No. 03−5086 ) rqstg record (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/29/2003)

1125 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : setting motion for attorney fees [1040−1] HRG set for 11:30 8/4/03 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/31/2003)

1126 MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Continuation of the Mot Hrg on Attys Fees (7/21/03 and 7/22/03) held on 8/4/03; Witn/Atty Jean Coulter testifies; Exhs adm; Clsg stmts made by the pties; Pties to submit proposed sched re: brfing of the

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 91 of 115

08/05/2003 08/06/2003 08/11/2003 08/11/2003 08/11/2003 08/12/2003 08/19/2003
08/19/2003
08/19/2003
08/29/2003
08/29/2003 09/03/2003 09/05/2003
09/10/2003 09/11/2003
09/12/2003 09/12/2003 09/12/2003 09/12/2003 09/12/2003

2 issues pndg &addressed on 7/21/03; Mot/attys fees taken under advisement. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
1127 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to file simultaneous post−hrg briefs (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
1128 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to file simultaneous post−hrg briefs [1127−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
1129 POST HEARING BRIEF FILED by defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
1130 POST HEARING BRIEF FILED by Plaintiffs re atty fees (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
1131 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTH by Plaintiffs re brief [1130−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
1132 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL POST−HEARING BRIEF FILED by Plaintiffs re atty fees (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Hrg on Appl for Attys' Fees Vol I before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 7/21/03 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 79 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Hrg on Appl for Attys' Fees Vol II before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 7/22/03 ( Re: appeal [1035−1] ) ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 80−264 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Hrg on Appl for Attys' Fees Vol III before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 8/4/03 ( Re: appeal [1035−1] ) ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 265−348 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
1133 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion for attorney fees as set forth [1040−1]; jt stat rpt re atty fees due 9/12/03 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
1134 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for preliminary injunction (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
1135 RESPONSE by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to motion for preliminary injunction [1134−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
1136 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes : setting motion for preliminary injunction [1134−1] for HRG at 1:30 on 9/18/03 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
1137 INITIAL STATUS REPORT by defendant Tulsa, City of (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
1138 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to set aside consent decree's requirement (o/j) that all individual claim documentary evid be filed w/Crt (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
1139 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to extend time to file jt status rpt re atty fees (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
1140 NOTICE (STATEMENT OF CLAIM) by pltf Matthew Wick (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
1141 NOTICE (STATEMENT OF CLAIM) by pltf Albert Young (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 09/15/2003 (Entered: 09/15/2003)
1142 NOTICE (STATEMENT OF CLAIM) by pltf Cornelius Dean Finley (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 09/15/2003 (Entered: 09/15/2003)
1143 NOTICE (STATEMENT OF CLAIM) by pltf Rufus Newsome (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/15/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 92 of 115

09/12/2003 09/12/2003 09/12/2003 09/12/2003 09/15/2003 09/15/2003 09/15/2003 09/15/2003 09/17/2003
09/18/2003 09/18/2003 09/18/2003 09/18/2003 09/18/2003
09/19/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003 09/23/2003

1144 NOTICE (STATEMENT OF CLAIM) by plaintiff Marvin Blades (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/15/2003)

1145 NOTICE (STATEMENT OF CLAIM) by plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/15/2003)

1146 NOTICE (STATEMENT OF CLAIM) by plaintiff Derrek L Lewis (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/15/2003)

1147 NOTICE (STATEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIM) by Anthony Ingram Sr (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/15/2003)

1148 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to extend time to file jt status rpt re atty fees until 9/17/03; ddln for amd atty fee appl is 9/26/03 [1139−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2003)

1149 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to set aside consent decree's requirement that all individual claim documentary evid be filed w/Crt [1138−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2003)

1150 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion for preliminary injunction [1134−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2003)

1151 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to motion for preliminary injunction [1134−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2003)

1152

ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the notice [1147−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the notice [1146−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the notice [1145−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the notice [1144−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the notice [1143−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the notice [1142−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the notice [1141−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the notice [1140−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/18/2003)

1153 JOINT STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2003)

1154 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to FOP's resp [1135−1] to pltf's resp [1151−1] to City's mot for prelim injunction [1134−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2003)

1155 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS by defendant Tulsa, City of (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2003)

1156 REPLY by intervenor defendant Lodge 93 Fraternal Order to pltfs' resp [1151−1] to City of Tulsa's mot for prelim injunction [1134−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2003)

1159

MINUTES: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: Prel Inj Hrg held on 9/18/03; Argmts heard on Deft City of Tulsa's Mot/Prel Inj [#1134] − FOP req time to respond to Deft's brf filed today − Findings made by the Court − Ct enters restraining ord req FOP to w/drw the 27 grievances; Deft directed to prepare an ord memorializing the Ct's ruling grnting Deft's Mot/Prel Inj relief − due 9/25/03. (G. Dorrough−CR) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/23/2003)

1157 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes directing parties to subm jt stip re atty fees &exps by 9/23/03 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2003)

1158 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes: directing City of Tulsa to include in the ord memorializing 9/18/03 hrg, certain verbiage (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2003)

TRANSCRIPT of An Excerpt before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 9/18/03 ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 12 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2003)

1160 COMBINED REPORT by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of... (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 93 of 115

09/23/2003 09/23/2003 09/24/2003 09/26/2003 09/29/2003
09/29/2003 09/29/2003
09/29/2003
09/29/2003
09/29/2003 10/02/2003
10/10/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003 10/17/2003

1160 ...STIPULATION... (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
1160 ...MOTION by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of re timing &method of paymt of atty fees (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
1161 NOTICE by defendant Tulsa, City of of submission of orders (o's/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
1162 MOTION by Plaintiffs to extend time to file suppl mtn/atty fees pendente lite (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
1163 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to extend time until 10/10/03 to file suppl mtn/atty fees pendente lite [1162−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
1164 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes re motion re timing &method of paymt of atty fees [1160−1], (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
1165 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law on the dfdt City of Tulsa's mot for preliminary injunction by Judge Sven Erik Holmes (cc: all cnsl) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
1166 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion for preliminary injunction [1134−1]; Crt orders FOP to withdraw 27 grievances w/i 10 days from filing date of this ord (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
1167 JUDGMENT: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, entered in favor of Jean Walpole Coulter &Associates against City of Tulsa (cc: all cnsl) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
1168 JUDGMENT: by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, entered in favor of Bullock and Bullock against City of Tulsa (cc: all cnsl) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Hrg on Mtn Prel Inj before Judge Sven Erik Holmes for date(s) of: 9/18/03 ( Re: appeal [1035−1] ) ( C/R: Glen R Dorrough, Pages: 64 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
1169 MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs for addtl time to file suppl mot for atty fees (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/14/2003)
1170 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of for judgment (j/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
1171 RESPONSE (ANSWER) by defendant Tulsa, City of to M Wicks' statement of claim [1140−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/15/2003 (Entered: 10/15/2003)
1172 RESPONSE (ANSWER) by defendant Tulsa, City of to W Busby's statement of claim [1145−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/15/2003 (Entered: 10/15/2003)
1173 RESPONSE (ANSWER) by defendant Tulsa, City of to R Newsome's statement of claim [1143−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/15/2003 (Entered: 10/15/2003)
1174 RESPONSE (ANSWER) by defendant Tulsa, City of to A Young's statement of claim [1141−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/15/2003 (Entered: 10/15/2003)
1175 RESPONSE (ANSWER) by defendant Tulsa, City of to D Lewis' statement of claim [1146−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
1176 RESPONSE (ANSWER) by defendant Tulsa, City of to C Finley's statement of claim [1142−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
1177 RESPONSE (ANSWER) by defendant Tulsa, City of to A Ingram's statement of claim [1147−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
1178 RESPONSE (ANSWER) by defendant Tulsa, City of to M Blades' statement of claim [1144−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
1179 ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion for addtl time to 10/24/03 to file suppl mot for atty fees [1169−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/20/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 94 of 115

10/17/2003
10/21/2003 10/22/2003 10/24/2003 10/24/2003 10/27/2003
11/07/2003 11/07/2003 11/07/2003 11/10/2003 11/12/2003 11/14/2003
11/19/2003 11/19/2003 11/19/2003 11/19/2003 11/19/2003 11/19/2003 11/20/2003

1180 JUDGMENT: by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion for judgment [1170−1]; w/i 15 days of entry of this jgm, Mr Martin A Brown shall recover from dfdt City of Tulsa pymt in amnt of $9,000.00 (cc: all cnsl) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/20/2003)

1181 SUPPLEMENT by defendant Tulsa, City of re report [1137−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

REMARK status/sched conf set 10/27/03 at 1:30 before MJ McCarthy −vbl ntc to counsel. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

1182 MOTION by All Plaintiffs for attorney fees , and for expenses pendente lite (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/27/2003)

1183 SUPPLEMENT by Plaintiffs re motion for attorney fees [1182−1], re motion for expenses pendente lite [1182−2] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/27/2003)

1184

MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy Status/Sched Conference held; Anthony T. Ingram to be added to docket sheet as Pro Se Pltf; Pltf's Brief on Suppl. Allegations to be filed by 11/10/03; Mot/S/J by Deft to be filed by 12/12/03 with Pltf's resp by 1/16/04 and Deft's reply by 1/30/04. A Settlement Conf to be set after ruling on S/J; exceeding page limit granted for each side. (cc: all counsel) tape #03−FHM−8 (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2003)

1185 UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to change ddln to resp 2 mtn/atty fees until 11/20/03 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/10/2003)

1186 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to change ddln to resp 2 mtn/atty fees until 11/20/03 [1185−1] [1182−1] [1182−2] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/10/2003)

1187 NOTICE (CONSENT TO AMENDED CLAIM) by defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/10/2003)

1188 BRIEF FILED by plaintiff All Plaintiffs re: splmntl allegations (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2003)

1189 NOTICE (AMENDED STATEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIM) by plaintiff Anthony T Ingram Sr (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2003)

1190 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion for attorney fees [1182−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion for expenses pendente lite [1182−2] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/17/2003)

1191 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to extend time to resp to Walter Busby's rqsts/prod until 11/26/03 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

1192 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to extend time to resp to Walter Busby's rqsts/prod until 11/26/03 [1191−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

1193 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to extend time to resp to Wicks' rqsts/prod until 11/26/03 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

1194 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to extend time to resp to Wicks' rqsts/prod until 11/26/03 [1193−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

1195 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to extend time to resp to Lewis' rqsts/prod until 11/26/03 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

1196 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion to extend time to resp to Lewis' rqsts/prod until 11/26/03 [1195−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

1197 RESPONSE (Answer) by defendant Tulsa, City of to [1189−1] Ingram's amd stmnt/individual claim (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/21/2003)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 95 of 115

11/20/2003 11/21/2003 11/21/2003 11/21/2003 12/11/2003 12/11/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003 12/19/2003 12/19/2003 12/22/2003 12/22/2003 12/30/2003 01/12/2004
01/13/2004 01/15/2004 01/21/2004
01/22/2004

1198 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion for attorney fees [1182−1], to motion for expenses pendente lite [1182−2] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
1199 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to extend time to resp to Walter Busby's rqsts/prod until 11/26/03 [1191−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
1200 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to extend time to resp to Wicks' rqsts/prod until 11/26/03 [1193−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
1201 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to extend time to resp to Lewis' rqsts/prod until 11/26/03 [1195−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
1202 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to exceed page limitation of mtn/sumjgm (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
1203 UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to extend time to file mtn/sumjgm until 12/19/03 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
1204 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to extend time to file mtn/sumjgm until 12/19/03 [1203−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
1205 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to exceed page limitation of mtn/sumjgm [1202−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
1206 FIRST REPORT TO THE DISPUTE AVOIDANCE AND RESOLUTION COMMITTEE by special master John A Gaberino Jr (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
1207 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of for summary judgment (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
1208 BRIEF by defendant Tulsa, City of in support of motion for summary judgment [1207−1] (ovrszd doc) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
1209 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy the motion for summary judgment [1207−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
1210 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendant Tulsa, City of of motion for summary judgment [1207−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
1211 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V. Eagan : SETTLMT CONF reset for 1:30 1/12/04 before Judge Claire V. Eagan (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
1212 MOTION by plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome to change ddln to resp re mtn/sumjgm until 1/23/04 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
1213 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to change ddln to resp re mtn/sumjgm until 1/23/04 [1212−1] [1207−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
1214 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to withdraw attorney Chris L Abernathy (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
1215 SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, plaintiff Albert L Young to change ddln to resp re mtn/sumjgm until 1/30/04 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
1216 ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to withdraw attorney Chris L Abernathy [1214−1] for Tulsa, City of (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/23/2004)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 96 of 115

01/22/2004 01/30/2004
01/30/2004 01/30/2004 01/30/2004 01/30/2004 01/30/2004 02/02/2004 02/02/2004 02/02/2004 02/04/2004 02/04/2004 02/05/2004
02/06/2004 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004 02/17/2004 02/17/2004 02/19/2004

1217 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to change ddln to resp re mtn/sumjgm until 1/30/04 [1215−1] [1207−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/23/2004)

1218 UNOPPOSSED MOTION by plaintiff Albert L Young, plaintiff Cornelius D Finley, plaintiff Derrek L Lewis, plaintiff Walter E Busby Jr, plaintiff Marvin Blades, plaintiff Rufus E Newsome, claimant Matthew Wick to exceed page limitation of resp to m/sumjgm (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/30/2004)

1219 SECOND PROGRESS REPORT by defendant Tulsa, City of (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 01/30/2004 (Entered: 01/30/2004)

1220 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to motion for summary judgment [1207−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/30/2004)

1221 EXHIBITS (VOL I) by Plaintiffs in support of motion response [1220−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/30/2004)

1222 EXHIBITS (VOL 2) by Plaintiffs in support of motion response [1220−1] (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/30/2004)

1223 MOTION by plaintiff Anthony T Ingram Sr to change time to resp re mtn/sumjgm (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/02/2004)

1224 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff All Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of for judgment (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/02/2004)

1225 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to exceed page limitation of resp to m/sumjgm [1218−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/03/2004)

1226 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to change time to resp re mtn/sumjgm [1223−1] [1207−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/04/2004)

1227 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to change time to resp re mtn/sumjgm until 2/27/04 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/05/2004)

1228 UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to exceed page limitation (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/05/2004)

1229

JUDGMENT: by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion for judgment [1224−1]; it is ordered that Mr Martin A Brown, Admin assistant to Independent Auditor, shall w/i 20 days of entry of this jgm have and recover from dfdt City of Tulsa payment in amnt of $9,000.00 (cc: all cnsl) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/06/2004)

1230 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to exceed page limitation [1228−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/09/2004)

1231 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to extend time until 2/27/04 [1227−1] to reply to motion for summary judgment [1207−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/10/2004)

1232 MOTION by plaintiff Anthony T Ingram Sr to change ddln to resp re mtn/sumjgm until 2/14/04 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/11/2004)

1233 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to change ddln to resp re mtn/sumjgm until 2/14/04 [1232−1] [1207−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/11/2004)

1234 MOTION by plaintiff Anthony T Ingram Sr to file resp re mtn/sumjgm out of time (o(sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/17/2004)

1235 THIRD AMENDED STMT OF INDIVIDUAL CLM by plaintiff Anthony T Ingram Sr (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/17/2004)

1236 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to file resp re mtn/sumjgm out of time [1234−1]; pltf shall file resp to motion for summary judgment [1207−1] no later than 2/23/04 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered:

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 97 of 115

02/27/2004 03/01/2004 04/21/2004 05/05/2004 05/07/2004 05/10/2004 05/11/2004
05/18/2004 05/20/2004 05/24/2004
05/28/2004 06/02/2004 06/03/2004 06/08/2004 06/21/2004
06/21/2004
06/24/2004 06/25/2004 07/01/2004

02/19/2004)

1237 REPLY by defendant Tulsa, City of to response to motion for summary judgment [1207−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/01/2004)

1238 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion for summary judgment [1207−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/02/2004)

1239 SECOND REPORT by special master John A Gaberino Jr to the Dispute Avoidance and Resolution Committee (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/22/2004)

1240 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of for judgment (j/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/06/2004)

1241 JUDGMENT: by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion for judgment [1240−1] (cc: all cnsl) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/10/2004)

1242 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of noncompliance (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/11/2004)

1243

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting in part and denying in part motion for summary judgment [1207−1]; pretrial order ddl set for 6/7/04 ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 9:30 6/11/04 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy ; TRIAL set for 9:30 6/21/04 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/12/2004)

1244 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to ntc of noncompliance [1242−1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/19/2004)

1245 JOINT MOTION by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to stay litigation pndg stlmt negotiations (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/21/2004)

1246

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting in part the motion to stay litigation pndg stlmt negotiations [1245−1]; pretrial order ddl reset for 9/7/04 ; PRETRIAL CONF reset for 1:30 9/13/04 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy ; TRIAL reset for 9:30 9/20/04 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/25/2004)

1247 REPLY by Plaintiffs re [1244−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/01/2004)

1249 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J. Cleary; SETTLMT CONF set for 9:30 7/15/04 before Adjunct Judge David R Cordell (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/2004)

1248 THIRD PROGRESS REPORT by defendant Tulsa, City of (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/2004)

1250 MOTION by Plaintiffs for preliminary injunction (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/09/2004)

1251 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes : referring to Judge Claire V. Eagan the motion for preliminary injunction [1250−1] for stlmt conf; IN−COURT (SETTLEMENT CONF) HRG set for 2:00 6/23/04 before Judge Claire V. Eagan (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/22/2004)

1252

MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes : the pltfs' ntc of noncompliance [1242−1] is referred to the Dispute Avoidance and Resolution Committee; the Committee is requested to attempt to resolve this matter and should notify the Crt of the status by 7/30/04 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/22/2004)

1253 MOTION by Plaintiffs to withdraw motion for prelinj (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/25/2004)

1254 MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes : granting motion to withdraw motion for prelinj [1253−1]; withdrawing motion for preliminary injunction [1250−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/28/2004)

1255 THIRD REPORT TO THE DISPUTE AVOIDANCE AND RESOLUTION COMMITTEE by special master John A Gaberino Jr (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/02/2004)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 98 of 115

07/08/2004 07/19/2004 07/22/2004 07/26/2004 08/11/2004 08/12/2004 08/16/2004
08/16/2004 09/01/2004 09/02/2004 09/07/2004 09/08/2004
09/10/2004 10/08/2004 10/14/2004 10/15/2004 10/19/2004 10/21/2004 10/21/2004

1256 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J. Cleary : SETTLMT CONF set 7−15−04 is stricken and reset for 9:30 7/21/04 before Adjunct Judge David Cordell. (cc: all counsel) (hbo, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/08/2004)

1257 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J. Cleary : settlement conference stricken (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/20/2004)

1258 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of for judgment (j/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/23/2004)

1259 JUDGMENT: by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion for judgment [1258−1] (cc: all cnsl) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/27/2004)

1260 MOTION by Plaintiffs for hearing on ntc of noncompliance (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/12/2004)

1261 RESPONSE by defendant Tulsa, City of to motion for hearing on ntc of noncompliance [1260−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/13/2004)

1262

ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes, ptys ordered to communicate directly w/Judge Thomas R Brett to arrange mutually convenient time to address issues; pltfs' ntc of noncompliance and mot to set for hrg are stayed pndg consideration of the subj issues in the adjunct stlmt process (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/17/2004)

1263 REPLY by plaintiff All Plaintiffs to response to motion for hearing on ntc of noncompliance [1260−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/17/2004)

1264 ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes finding the motion for hearing on ntc of noncompliance [1260−1] moot (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/02/2004)

1265 MOTION by Plaintiffs to amend scheduling order as to individual clms (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/2004)

MAIL RETURNED: [1264−1] addressed to James Randall Miller at 3220 S Peoria Ste 101, Tulsa OK 74105 (moved); remailed to 222 S Kenosha, Tulsa OK 74119 (ICMS had been updated) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/08/2004)

1266

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to amend scheduling order as to individual clms [1265−1] ; proposed pretrial order due 11/15/04 ; PRETRIAL CONF reset for 9:30 11/22/04 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy ; TRIAL reset for 9:30 12/6/04 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy (see ord for further ddlns) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/09/2004)

1267 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATUS REPORT: SETTLEMENT CONF set for 9:30 10/12/04 before Adjunct Judge David R Cordell (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/13/2004)

1268 FOURTH PROGRESS REPORT by defendant Tulsa, City of (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/08/2004)

1269 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT by Adjunct Judge David R Cordell; settlement conference held 10/14/04 ; advising litigation was not settled (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/15/2004)

1270 MOTION by plaintiffs to file ntc of noncompliance under seal (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/18/2004)

1271 JOINT MOTION by Greg Robinson, defendant Tulsa, City of for judgment (jgm/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/2004)

1272 ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to file ntc of noncompliance under seal [1270−1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/22/2004)

1273 JUDGMENT: by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion for judgment [1271−1] (cc: all cnsl) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/22/2004)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 99 of 115

10/27/2004 11/04/2004 11/10/2004 11/12/2004 11/15/2004 11/17/2004 11/18/2004
11/19/2004
11/19/2004
11/19/2004 11/22/2004
11/24/2004 11/30/2004 12/02/2004
01/12/2005
01/12/2005
01/21/2005 01/24/2005
01/26/2005 01/26/2005 02/03/2005 02/04/2005

1274 FOURTH REPORT by special master John A Gaberino Jr to the dispute avoidance &resoultion committee (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
1275 SEALED DOCUMENT (PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE) (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
1276 OBJECTIONS by defendant Tulsa, City of to unsealing of [1275−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
1277 JOINT MOTION by Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to amend scheduling order (ext PTO ddln) until 11/17/04 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
1278 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to [1276−1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
PROPOSED Agreed Pre−trial Order Received from Plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of forwarded to: seh−j (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
1279 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy : ; PRETRIAL CONF reset for 10:30 11/22/04 before Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy (cc: all counsel) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
1280 SEALED DOCUMENT (DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE) (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
1281 ORDER by Chief Judge Sven Erik Holmes granting motion to amend scheduling order (ext PTO ddln) until 11/17/04 [1277−1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
1282 MOTION by defendant Tulsa, City of to seal resp to pltfs' ntc of noncompliance (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
1283 MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy ; Pretrial conference held 11/22/04; NJ trial est to be 3 weeks; any evid issues to be raised are to be filed by 12/2/04. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
1284 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendant Tulsa, City of to amend scheduling order (to ext trial date) (o/mj−FHM) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/29/2004)
1285 SEALED DOCUMENT (PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
1286 MINUTES: by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy granting motion to amend scheduling order (to ext trial date) [1284−1] (see ord for further ddlns); NJT will be set after ruling from circut. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
1287 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Status Hearing, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): Court Room #1, 3rd Floor, 1/18/05 @ 10:00 a.m. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
1288 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Status Hearing (date correction), setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): 2/18/05 at 10:00 a.m. in Court Room #1, 3rd floor. (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
1289 DECISION from Circuit Court affirming the Decision of the District Court (Re: 1035 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/24/2005)
1290 SEALED MOTION (Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Motion to Supplement Notice of Noncompliance)(Oversized document) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
1291 SEALED ORDER (s−lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
1292 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
1293 NOTICE of Change of Address by Patricia Whittaker Bullock by on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Bullock, Patricia) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
1295 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite by All Plaintiffs (With attachments) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/07/2005)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 100 of 115

02/07/2005 02/09/2005 02/15/2005 02/15/2005 02/16/2005
02/22/2005 02/23/2005 02/23/2005 02/23/2005 02/25/2005 02/25/2005
02/25/2005
02/28/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 03/01/2005 03/01/2005

1294 NOTICE of Change of Address by Patricia Whittaker Bullock by on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Bullock, Patricia) (Entered: 02/07/2005)

1296 Fifth REPORT by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/10/2005)

1297 MOTION to Strike and re−schedule status conference by All Plaintiffs (Blakemore, Robert) Modified on 2/16/2005 to match title of document (s−crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 02/15/2005)

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification to match title of document (Re: 1297 MOTION to Strike status conference) (s−crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/16/2005)

1298 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy, granting 1297 Motion to Strike, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): Status Conf reset for 3/9/05 @ 9:30 in Courtroom #2, 3rd Fl. (Re: 1297 MOTION to Strike status conference) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/16/2005)

1299 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1295 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite) by Tulsa, City of ; (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 02/22/2005)

1300 JUDGMENT by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, granting 1292 Motion for Judgment, entering judgment in favor of Independent Auditor's Administrative Assistant Martin A. Brown against City of Tulsa (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/23/2005)

1301 MOTION to Dismiss Various Pending Motions Filed Under Seal by All Plaintiffs (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 02/23/2005)

1302 MOTION to Accelerate Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Fees and Expenses by All Plaintiffs (With attachments) (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 02/23/2005)

1303 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes (Re: 1301 MOTION to Dismiss Various Pending Motions Filed Under Seal) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/2005)

1304 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, referring motion(s) to Magistrate Judge McCarthy (Re: 1302 MOTION to Accelerate Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Fees and Expenses, 1295 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/2005)

1305

MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy : Motion Hearing held on 2/25/2005, granting 1302 Motion to Accelerate Hearing(s)/Deadline(s), setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): Hrg set on 3/1/05 @ 9:30 in Courtroom #2, 3rd floor (Re: 1302 MOTION to Accelerate Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Fees and Expenses, 1295 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite, 1182 Motion for Attorney FeesMotion for Miscellaneous Relief) (Court Reporter: conf room) (s−jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/2005)

1306 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by All Plaintiffs (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 02/28/2005)

1307 WITNESS LIST by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 02/28/2005)

1308 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 1295 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite) by All Plaintiffs ; (With attachments) (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 02/28/2005)

1309 WITNESS LIST by All Plaintiffs (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 02/28/2005)

1310 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, finding as moot 1290 Sealed Motion, granting 1301 Motion to Dismiss (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/28/2005)

1311 MOTION for Attorney Fees Supplement to Amended Motion for Fees by All Plaintiffs (With attachments) (Bullock, Patricia) Modified on 3/2/2005 "ENTERED IN ERROR − wrong event used" (s−crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 03/01/2005)

1312 MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy : Motion Hearing held on 3/1/2005, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): Obj to

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 101 of 115

03/01/2005 03/02/2005 03/02/2005 03/04/2005 03/04/2005
03/06/2005 03/06/2005 03/07/2005 03/07/2005
03/07/2005
03/07/2005 03/08/2005

RRfiled by noon 3/8/05, striking/terminating deadline(s)/Hearing(s), taking motion(s) under advisement (Re: 1182 Motion for Attorney FeesMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 1295 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite, 1311 MOTION for Attorney Fees Supplement to Amended Motion for Fees) (Court Reporter: C2) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/01/2005)

1314 SUPPLEMENT (Re: 1295 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite) by All Plaintiffs (With attachments) (s−crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 3/2/2005 "This entry replaces/corrects Document No. 1311" (s−crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 03/02/2005)

1313 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy, granting 1306 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation (MLC, Chambers) (Entered: 03/02/2005)

1315 Fifth REPORT TO THE DISPUTE AVOIDANCE AND RESOLUTION COMMITTEE by John A Gaberino, Jr (tjc, Dpty Clk) Modified on 3/4/2005 to add filer information and correct double wording in title (s−crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 03/03/2005)

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification to add filer information and correct double wording in title (Re: 1315 Report) (s−crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/04/2005)

1316

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Granting Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite, in Part (Re: 1304 Minute Order,, Referring Motion(s), Referring Motion(s), 1182 Motion for Attorney FeesMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 1295 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite) (FHM1, Chambers) (Entered: 03/04/2005)

1317 MOTION to Extend Deadline(s) to File Objection to Report and Recommendation by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 03/06/2005)

1318 MOTION to Amend and Correct (Re: 1316 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Granting Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite, in Part) by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 03/06/2005)

1319 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1317 MOTION to Extend Deadline(s) to File Objection to Report and Recommendation) by All Plaintiffs ; (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 03/07/2005)

1320

MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy : Motion Hearing held on 3/7/2005, granting 1318 Motion to Amend (Re: 1318 MOTION to Amend and Correct, 1316 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Granting Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite, in Part) (Court Reporter: conf room) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/07/2005)

1321

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Corrected Report and Recommendation, GRANTING Motion to Amend and Correct and Recommending Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses be Granted in Part (Re: 1182 Motion for Attorney FeesMotion for Miscellaneous Relief, 1316 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Granting Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite, in Part, 1295 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pendente Lite, 1318 MOTION to Amend and Correct) (FHM1, Chambers) (Entered: 03/07/2005)

1322 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Hearing on Attorney Fees held on 3/1/05 before Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy (Court Reporter: Terri Beeler) (Pages: 171) (Re: 1320 Minutes of Motion Hearing,, Ruling on Motion to Amend,, Hearing Held,,, ) (tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/08/2005)

1323

OBJECTION to Report and Recommendation (Re: 1321 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Corrected Report and Recommendation, GRANTING Motion to Amend and Correct and Recommending Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses be Granted in Part) by All Plaintiffs (With attachments) (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 03/08/2005)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 102 of 115

03/08/2005
03/08/2005 03/08/2005 03/15/2005
03/15/2005 03/16/2005 03/17/2005
03/24/2005 03/24/2005 03/24/2005 03/25/2005 03/29/2005 03/29/2005 04/08/2005 04/13/2005
04/14/2005 04/20/2005

1324

OBJECTION to Report and Recommendation (Re: 1321 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Corrected Report and Recommendation, GRANTING Motion to Amend and Correct and Recommending Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses be Granted in Part) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 03/08/2005)

1325 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, referring motion(s) to Magistrate Judge McCarthy (Re: 1311 MOTION for Attorney Fees Supplement to Amended Motion for Fees) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/08/2005)

1326 ORDER by Judge Sven Erik Holmes, granting 1317 Motion to Extend Deadline(s) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/08/2005)

1327 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk, pursuant to General Order 05−6, reassigning this case by random draw, changing case number to 94−cv−39−TCK−FHM, reassigning case to Judge Terence Kern, Judge Sven Erik Holmes no longer assigned to case (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/15/2005)

1328 RESPONSE (Re: 1323 Objection to Report and Recommendation, ) by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 03/15/2005)

1329 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1311 MOTION for Attorney Fees Supplement to Amended Motion for Fees) by Tulsa, City of ; (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 03/16/2005)

1330

OBJECTION to Report and Recommendation (Re: 1321 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Corrected Report and Recommendation, GRANTING Motion to Amend and Correct and Recommending Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses be Granted in Part) by All Plaintiffs (With attachments) (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 03/17/2005)

1331 RESPONSE (Re: 1324 Objection to Report and Recommendation, ) by All Plaintiffs (With attachments) (Blakemore, Robert) Modified on 3/25/2005 to also create link to RR1321 (s−sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 03/24/2005)

1332 RESPONSE (Re: 1330 Objection to Report and Recommendation, ) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) Modified on 3/25/2005 to also create link to 1321 RR(s−sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 03/24/2005)

1333 NOTICE of Change of Address by Loren F Gibson by on behalf of Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/25/2005)

1334 MOTION to Strike Document(s) (Re: 1331 Response) by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 03/25/2005)

1335 MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy : Status Hearing held on 3/29/2005, setting/resetting scheduling order date(s): NJT 6/6/05 (Court Reporter: 05−FHM−4) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/29/2005)

1336 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1334 MOTION to Strike Document(s)) by All Plaintiffs ; (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 03/29/2005)

1337 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, denying 1334 Motion to Strike Document(s) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 04/08/2005)

1338 NOTICE of Joint Notice that Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation are at Issue and Request for Hearing (Re: 1326 Order, Ruling on Motion to Extend Deadline(s), ) by All Plaintiffs (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 04/13/2005)

1339 Joint MOTION for Hearing (Re: 1326 Order, Ruling on Motion to Extend Deadline(s), ) by All Plaintiffs, City of Tulsa (Blakemore, Robert) Modified on 4/15/2005 to correct filer information (s−crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 04/14/2005)

1340 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, granting in part and denying in part 1295 Motion for Attorney Fees, granting in part and denying in part 1321 Report and Recommendation (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/20/2005)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 103 of 115

04/20/2005 04/21/2005 04/27/2005 05/04/2005
05/04/2005
05/05/2005
05/06/2005 05/06/2005
05/12/2005 05/12/2005 05/23/2005 05/23/2005 06/07/2005 06/09/2005 06/23/2005 07/07/2005 07/08/2005 07/11/2005

1341 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 04/20/2005)

1342 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1341 Motion for Judgment, entering judgment in favor of Martin A. Brown against City of Tulsa (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 04/21/2005)

1343 MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs (With attachments) (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 04/27/2005)

1344 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, entering judgment in favor of Jean Walpole Coulter &Associates, Inc. against City of Tulsa (Re: 1340 Order, Ruling on Motion for Attorney Fees, Ruling on Report and Recommendation, ) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 05/04/2005)

1345 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1343 Motion for Judgment, entering judgment in favor of Bullock and Bullock against City of Tulsa (Re: 1340 Order, Ruling on Motion for Attorney Fees, Ruling on Report and Recommendation, ) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 05/04/2005)

1346 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court (Re: 1340 Order, Ruling on Motion for Attorney Fees, Ruling on Report and Recommendation,, 1345 Judgment,, Ruling on Motion for Judgment,,,, Entering Judgment, ) by All Plaintiffs (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 05/05/2005)

1347 PRELIMINARY RECORD Sent to Circuit Court (Re: 1346 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) (With attachments) (s−sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/06/2005)

1348

APPEAL FEES Paid in Full (Re: 1346 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) by Tammara McKinney−Olden, Rufus E Newsome, Tyrone D Lynn, Marvin Blades, Walter E Busby, Jr, Derrek L Lewis, Ray D Nelson, Cornelius D Finley, Gary L Pitts, Roy C Johnson, Albert L Young, Mark A Moore, Dwight E Jackson, Steven L Gibbs, Deborah J Daniels−Fleak, Debbie R Crisp, Debra D Dickens (tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/09/2005)

1349 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM (Transcripts are not necessary or are already on file ) (Re: 1346 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) by All Plaintiffs (s−lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/13/2005)

1351 APPEAL NUMBER INFORMATION from Circuit Court assigning Case Number 05−5064 (Re: 1346 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) (agc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2005)

1350 JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Journal Entry of Judgment Upon Agreed Settlement, dismissing/terminating case, entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendant (FHM1, Chambers) (Entered: 05/23/2005)

***Civil Case Terminated (see document number 1350 ) (s−sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/24/2005)

1352 CLERK'S RECORD on Appeal Sent to Circuit Court (Re: 1035 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court, 1346 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) (agc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/09/2005)

1353 Sixth REPORT Progress Report by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 06/09/2005)

1354 Sixth STATUS REPORT by John A Gaberino, Jr (With attachments) (Brown, Martin) (Entered: 06/23/2005)

1355 MOTION for Contempt by All Plaintiffs (With attachments) (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 07/07/2005)

1356 MOTION to Stay Contempt Proceeding Pending Dispute Resolution Process by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 07/08/2005)

1357 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1356 MOTION to Stay Contempt Proceeding Pending Dispute Resolution Process) by All Plaintiffs ; (With attachments) (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 07/11/2005)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 104 of 115

07/19/2005 07/19/2005 07/21/2005 07/21/2005
07/22/2005 07/28/2005 07/29/2005 08/10/2005 08/22/2005 09/15/2005 10/05/2005 10/27/2005 11/04/2005 11/04/2005 11/07/2005
11/17/2005
11/29/2005 11/30/2005

1358 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 1356 MOTION to Stay Contempt Proceeding Pending Dispute Resolution Process) by Tulsa, City of ; (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 07/19/2005)

1359 CERTIFICATE of Service (Re: 1358 Reply to Response to Motion) by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 07/19/2005)

1360 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Order of Contempt (Re: 1355 MOTION for Contempt) by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 07/21/2005)

1361 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1360 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Responses due by 7/29/2005, Replies due by 8/10/2005 (Re: 1355 MOTION for Contempt) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 07/21/2005)

1362 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 07/22/2005)

1363 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1362 Motion for Judgment, entering judgment in favor of Martin A. Brown against City of Tulsa (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/28/2005)

1364 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1355 MOTION for Contempt) by Tulsa, City of ; (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 07/29/2005)

1365 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 1355 MOTION for Contempt) by All Plaintiffs ; (With attachments) (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 08/10/2005)

1366 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1356 Motion to Stay, referring motion(s) to Adjunct Settlement Judge Thomas R. Brett (Re: 1355 MOTION for Contempt) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 08/22/2005)

1367 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern re: FOP committee members (Re: 1091 Order,, 1028 Order) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 09/15/2005)

1368 Seventh REPORT (Progress) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 10/05/2005)

1369 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 10/27/2005)

1370 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1369 Motion for Judgment, entering judgment in favor of Martin A Brown against Defendant City of Tulsa (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 11/04/2005)

1371 Seventh STATUS REPORT by John A Gaberino, Jr (Brown, Martin) (Entered: 11/04/2005)

1372

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, Parties are to take notice that documents are being filed in this matter which incorrectly cite the case number. Specifically, an incorrect reference has been included in the judge and/or magistrate judge designation portion of the case number citation on a recent pleading. The incorrect citation of the judge assigned to a case causes misrouting of pleadings within the court. The correct case number, 94−cv−39−TCK−FHM, should be noted and corrected on all future pleadings. (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 11/07/2005)

1373 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Motion Hearing set for 1/3/2006 at 01:30 PM before Judge Terence Kern (Re: 1355 MOTION for Contempt) (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/17/2005)

1374 Joint MOTION to Supplement Briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion (Re: 1355 MOTION for Contempt) by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 11/29/2005)

1375 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1374 Motion to Supplement, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Responses due by 12/15/2005 (Re: 1355 MOTION for Contempt) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 11/30/2005)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 105 of 115

12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/28/2005 12/28/2005 12/29/2005 01/25/2006
01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006 01/26/2006 01/26/2006 01/29/2006

1376 BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 1355 MOTION for Contempt) by All Plaintiffs ; (With attachments) (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 12/15/2005)

1377 BRIEF (Supplemental) in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Order of Contempt (Re: 1364 Response in Opposition to Motion) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 12/15/2005)

1378 Unopposed MOTION to Strike Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) and Reset Hearing Date (Re: 1355 MOTION for Contempt) by All Plaintiffs (Blakemore, Robert) Modified on 12/29/2005 to create link to #1355 (s−crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 12/28/2005)

1379 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1378 Motion to Strike Hearing(s)/Deadline(s), setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Miscellaneous Hearing set for 1/30/2006 at 10:00 AM before Judge Terence Kern (Re: 1355 MOTION for Contempt) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 12/28/2005)

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: Document was not linked to Document #1355; Correction: Created link to #1355 (Re: 1378 Unopposed MOTION to Strike Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) and Reset Hearing Date) (s−crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/29/2005)

1380

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) Modified on 1/26/2006 to delete text and efile Motion for Permanent Injuntion and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (see 1382 ) (s−sac, Dpty Clk). Modified on 2/1/2006 to add WITHDRAWN watermark (see 1391 ) (s−sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 01/25/2006)

1381 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by All Plaintiffs (Blakemore, Robert) Modified on 1/26/2006 to delete text and efile second part of this motion (see 1383 ) (s−sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 01/25/2006)

1382 MOTION for Permanent Injunction, MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (submitted as part of 1380 by Tulsa, City of (s−sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 2/1/2006; THIS DOCUMENT IS WITHDRAWN (see 1391 ) (s−sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 01/26/2006)

1383 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (submitted as part of 1381 ) by All Plaintiffs (s−sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/26/2006)

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: multi−part motion, only one part efiled; Correction: deleted text; efiled Motion for Permanent Injunction and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (see 1382 ) (Re: 1380 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order) (s−sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/26/2006)

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: multi part motion, not all parts efiled; Correction: deleted text; efiled Motion for Preliminary Injunction (see 1383 ) (Re: 1381 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order) (s−sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/26/2006)

1384

ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Motion Hearing set for 1/30/2006 at 11:00 AM before Judge Terence Kern (Re: 1380 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 1381 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, 1382 MOTION for Permanent Injunction MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (submitted as part of 1380 , 1383 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (submitted as part of 1381 )) (JLW, Chambers) Modified on 1/26/2006 to rule on Motion for TRO (s−cds, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 01/26/2006)

1385 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by James Robert Moore on behalf of Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 (Moore, James) (Entered: 01/26/2006)

1386 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Mary Sue Wycoff on behalf of Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 (Wycoff, Mary) (Entered: 01/26/2006)

1387 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Douglas D Vernier on behalf of Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 (Vernier, Douglas) (Entered: 01/26/2006)

1388 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1380 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 1382 MOTION for Permanent Injunction MOTION for Temporary

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 106 of 115

01/30/2006 01/30/2006
01/30/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006
02/01/2006 02/09/2006 02/15/2006 02/24/2006 05/01/2006 05/04/2006 05/25/2006 07/05/2006 07/24/2006 07/25/2006 08/02/2006

Restraining Order (submitted as part of 1380 ) by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 ; (With attachments) (Vernier, Douglas) (Entered: 01/29/2006)

1389 MOTION to Withdraw Document(s) (Re: 1380 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 1382 MOTION for Permanent Injunction MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (submitted as part of 1380 ) by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

1392

MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Judge Terence Kern : Miscellaneous Hearing held on 1/30/2006, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): (Re: 1380 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 1381 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, 1382 MOTION for Permanent Injunction MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (submitted as part of 1380 , Notice of Docket Entry Modification,, 1383 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (submitted as part of 1381 ), Notice of Docket Entry Modification) (Court Reporter: Terri Beeler) (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

1393 MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Judge Terence Kern : Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/30/2006, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, taking motion(s) under advisement (Re: 1355 MOTION for Contempt) (Court Reporter: Terri Beeler) (With attachments) (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

1390 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 01/31/2006)

1391

ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1389 Motion to Withdraw Documents(s), striking/withdrawing document(s) (Re: 1380 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 1382 MOTION for Permanent Injunction MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (submitted as part of 1380 ) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 01/31/2006)

1394 Eighth REPORT Consent Decree Eighth Progress Report by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

1395 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1390 Motion for Judgment, entering judgment in favor of Independent Auditor's Administrative Assistant Martin A. Brown for $9,000.00 against City of Tulsa (terminates case) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 02/09/2006)

1396 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, denying 1355 Motion for Contempt (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 02/15/2006)

1397 Eighth STATUS REPORT by John A Gaberino, Jr (Brown, Martin) (Entered: 02/24/2006)

1398 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 05/01/2006)

1399 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1398 Motion for Judgment, entering judgment in favor of the Independent Auditor's Administrative Assistant, Martin A. Brown, in the amount of $9,000 against the City of Tulsa (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 05/04/2006)

1400 Ninth REPORT (Progress) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 05/25/2006)

1401 Ninth STATUS REPORT by John A Gaberino, Jr (Brown, Martin) (Entered: 07/05/2006)

1402 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, City of Tulsa (With attachments) (Bullock, Louis) Modified on 7/25/2006 to add filer (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 07/24/2006)

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: not all filers selected; Correction: added City of Tulsa as a filer (Re: 1402 Joint MOTION for Judgment) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/25/2006)

1403 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1402 Motion for Judgment, entering judgment in favor of the Independent Auditor's Administrative Assistant,

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 107 of 115

10/17/2006 10/18/2006 10/24/2006 11/01/2006 11/03/2006 01/18/2007
01/19/2007 01/29/2007
02/19/2007 03/01/2007 03/08/2007
03/09/2007
03/09/2007 03/19/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/03/2007 04/05/2007

Martin A. Brown, in the amount of $9,000 against City of Tulsa (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 08/02/2006)

1404 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

1405 Tenth REPORT (Progress) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 10/18/2006)

1406 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1404 Motion for Judgment, entering judgment in favor of Independent Auditor's Administrative Assistant, Martin A. Brown against City of Tulsa (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 10/24/2006)

MAIL Resent to Anthony T. Ingram Sr at 20779 E 48th St S, Broken Arrow OK 74014−8756 (obtained from return envelope) (Re: 1406 Judgment, Ruling on Motion for Judgment, Entering Judgment) (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/01/2006)

1407 Tenth STATUS REPORT by John A Gaberino, Jr (Brown, Martin) (Entered: 11/03/2006)

1408

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Excerpt held on 1−30−06 before Judge Terence Kern (Court Reporter: Terri Beeler) (Pages: 1−5) (Re: 1393 Minutes of Evidentiary Hearing,, Hearing Held,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement) (tdb, Crt Rptr) (Entered: 01/18/2007)

1409 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

1410 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1409 Motion for Judgment, entering judgment in favor of Independent Auditor's Administrative Assistant, Martin A. Brown, in the amount of $9,000 against City of Tulsa (terminates case) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 01/29/2007)

1411 REPORT (Eleventh Progress) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 02/19/2007)

1412 Joint MOTION to Enforce (Require FOP to Submit PERB Dispute) by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 03/01/2007)

1413 SUPPLEMENT (Re: 1412 Joint MOTION to Enforce (Require FOP to Submit PERB Dispute)) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) Modified on 3/9/2007 to correct title of event (lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 03/08/2007)

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: This was e−filed using the incorrect event (Motion to Supplement); Correction: Edited docket text to reflect correct event (Supplement) (Re: 1413 SUPPLEMENT) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/09/2007)

1414 STATUS REPORT by John A Gaberino, Jr (Brown, Martin) (Entered: 03/09/2007)

1415 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1412 Joint MOTION to Enforce (Require FOP to Submit PERB Dispute)) by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 ; (With attachments) (Vernier, Douglas) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

1416 Joint MOTION to Seal Document (Reply Brief) by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 04/02/2007)

1417 SEALED DOCUMENT (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 04/02/2007)

1418 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1416 Joint MOTION to Seal Document (Reply Brief)) by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 ; (Vernier, Douglas) (Entered: 04/03/2007)

1419 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1416 Motion to Seal Document(s) (Re: 1417 Sealed Document) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 04/05/2007)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 108 of 115

04/16/2007 04/18/2007 05/01/2007 05/04/2007 05/07/2007
05/22/2007 06/04/2007
06/13/2007
06/29/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/16/2007 07/18/2007 07/23/2007 07/24/2007

1420 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 04/16/2007)

1421 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1420 Motion for Judgment, entering judgment in favor of Independent Auditor's Administrative Assistant, Martin A. Brown, in the amount of $9,000 (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 04/18/2007)

1422 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Motion Hearing set for 5/9/2007 at 01:30 PM before Judge Terence Kern (Re: 1412 Joint MOTION to Enforce (Require FOP to Submit PERB Dispute)) (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/01/2007)

1423 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 (Vernier, Douglas) (Entered: 05/04/2007)

1424

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1423 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s), setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): (resetting hearing of 5/9/07), Miscellaneous Hearing set for 6/4/2007 at 10:00 AM before Judge Terence Kern, Motion Hearing set for 6/4/2007 at 10:00 AM before Judge Terence Kern (Re: 1423 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s)) (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/07/2007)

1425 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Deirdre O cDexter on behalf of Tulsa, City of (cDexter, Deirdre) (Entered: 05/22/2007)

1426

MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Judge Terence Kern : Motion Hearing held on 6/4/2007, striking/terminating deadline(s)/Hearing(s), taking motion(s) under advisement (Re: 1412 Joint MOTION to Enforce (Require FOP to Submit PERB Dispute) ) (Court Reporter: Terri Beeler) (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/2007)

1427

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Motion hearing held on 6/4/07 before Judge Terence Kern (Court Reporter: Terri Beeler) (Pages: 1−33) (Re: 1426 Minutes of Motion Hearing,, Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement, Taking Motion(s) Under Advisement ) (tdb, Crt Rptr) (Entered: 06/13/2007)

1428 REPORT Twelfth Progress Report by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 06/29/2007)

1429 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; denying 1412 Motion to Enforce (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/10/2007)

1430 DECISION from Circuit Court reversing and remanding the Decision of the District Court (Re: 1346 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court ) (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/10/2007)

1431 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 07/16/2007)

1432 Supplemental DECISION from Circuit Court costs are taxed in favor of appellants regarding the Decision of the District Court (Re: 1346 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court ) (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

1433 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern ; entering judgment in favor of Independent Auditor's Administrative Assistant, Martin A. Brown, in the amount of $9,000 ; granting 1431 Motion for Judgment (Documents Terminated: 1431 Joint MOTION for Judgment ) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 07/23/2007)

1434

ORDER by Judge Terence Kern (The parties are to confer and file a Joint Notice by no later than August 31, 2007.) (Re: 1430 Decision from Circuit Court, 1321 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Corrected Report and Recommendation, GRANTING Motion to Amend and Correct and Recommending Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses be Granted in Part ) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 07/24/2007)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 109 of 115

08/06/2007 08/13/2007 08/14/2007 08/15/2007 08/29/2007 09/04/2007 09/04/2007 09/20/2007 10/04/2007
10/11/2007
10/17/2007 10/17/2007 10/18/2007
10/23/2007
11/08/2007
11/13/2007 11/13/2007

1435 STATUS REPORT by John A Gaberino, Jr (Brown, Martin) (Entered: 08/06/2007)

1436 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Settlement Conference set for 9/27/2007 at 01:30 PM before Judge Claire V Eagan (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/13/2007)

1437 NOTICE Notice of Noncompliance by All Plaintiffs (With attachments) (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 08/14/2007)

1438 NOTICE of Change of Address by Patricia Whittaker Bullock by on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Bullock, Patricia) (Entered: 08/15/2007)

1439 Unopposed MOTION to Strike Joint Notice Deadline Pending Settlement Discussions by All Plaintiffs (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 08/29/2007)

1440 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; granting 1439 Motion to Strike (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/04/2007)

1441 RESPONSE (Re: 1437 Notice (Other) ) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 09/04/2007)

1442 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Settlement Conference set for 9/26/2007 at 12:00 PM before Judge Claire V Eagan (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/20/2007)

1443

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): the deadline for filing any Joint Notice concerning the compensability of attorney fees is extended to October 11, 2007, Miscellaneous Deadline set for 10/11/2007 (Re: 1440 Order, Ruling on Motion to Strike ) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 10/04/2007)

1444

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): The deadline for filing a Joint Notice concerning the compensability of attorney fees is extended to October 25, 2007, Miscellaneous Deadline set for 10/25/2007 (Re: 1440 Order, Ruling on Motion to Strike ) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

1445 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 10/17/2007)

1446 REPORT (Thirteenth Progress) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 10/17/2007)

1447

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): The deadline for filing a Joint Notice concerning the compensability of attorney fees is extended to November 8, 2007, Miscellaneous Deadline set for 11/8/2007 (Re: 1440 Order, Ruling on Motion to Strike ) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 10/18/2007)

1448 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern ; entering judgment in favor of Independent Auditor's Assistant, Martin A. Brown, in the amount of $9,000.00 ; granting 1445 Motion for Judgment (Documents Terminated: 1445 Joint MOTION for Judgment ) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 10/23/2007)

1449 Joint MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) for filing Joint Notice (Re: 1447 Minute Order,, Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s), Setting/Resetting Deadline(s)/Hearing(s),, ) by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 11/08/2007)

1450 Interim STATUS REPORT by John A Gaberino, Jr (Brown, Martin) (Entered: 11/13/2007)

1451

ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): The deadline for filing a Joint Notice concerning the compensability of attorney fees is extended to November 16, 2007 ; granting 1449 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s), Miscellaneous Deadline set for 11/16/2007 (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 11/13/2007)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 110 of 115

11/29/2007 01/16/2008 01/22/2008
02/08/2008 02/22/2008 04/15/2008 04/21/2008
05/09/2008 05/27/2008 06/10/2008 07/02/2008 07/10/2008 07/15/2008
10/16/2008 10/16/2008 11/14/2008 11/20/2008
01/09/2009 01/13/2009

1452 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, awarding attorney fees to Plaintiffs and against Defendant City of Tulsa (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 11/29/2007)

1453 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 01/16/2008)

1454 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern ; entering judgment in favor of Independent Auditor's Administrative Assistant, Martin A. Brown, in the amount of $9,000 ; granting 1453 Motion for Judgment (Documents Terminated: 1453 Joint MOTION for Judgment ) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 01/22/2008)

1455 REPORT Fourteenth Progress by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 02/08/2008)

1456 Interim STATUS REPORT by John A Gaberino, Jr (Brown, Martin) (Entered: 02/22/2008)

1457 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 04/15/2008)

1458 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern ; entering judgment in favor of Independent Auditor's Administrative Assistant, Martin A. Brown, in the amount of $9,000 ; granting 1457 Motion for Judgment (Documents Terminated: 1457 Joint MOTION for Judgment ) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 04/21/2008)

1459 NOTICE Notice of Noncompliance by All Plaintiffs (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

1460 RESPONSE (Re: 1459 Notice (Other) ) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 05/27/2008)

1461 REPORT (Fifteenth Progress Report) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

1462 Interim REPORT Fifteenth Compliance Report by John A Gaberino, Jr (Brown, Martin) (Entered: 07/02/2008)

1463 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1464

JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern ; entering judgment in favor of Martin A Brown, Administrative Assistant to the Independent Auditor, in the amount of $9,000.00 against Defendant City of Tulsa ; granting 1463 Motion for Judgment (Documents Terminated: 1463 Joint MOTION for Judgment ) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 07/15/2008)

1465 REPORT (Sixteenth Progress) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 10/16/2008)

1466 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 10/16/2008)

1467 Interim REPORT Sixteenth by John A Gaberino, Jr (Brown, Martin) (Entered: 11/14/2008)

1468

JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern ; entering judgment in favor of Martin A Brown, Administrative Assistant to the Independent Auditor, in the amount of $9,000.00 against Defendant City of Tulsa ; granting 1466 Motion for Judgment (Documents Terminated: 1466 Joint MOTION for Judgment ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 11/20/2008)

1469 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, referring Plaintiffs' Notice of Noncompliance and all additional outstanding matters to Chief Judge Eagan as settlement judge for final resolution (Re: 1459 Notice (Other) ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

1470 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Settlement Conference set for 2/3/2009 at 10:30 AM before Chief Judge Claire V Eagan) (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/13/2009)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 111 of 115

01/21/2009 02/02/2009
02/03/2009 02/04/2009 02/11/2009
08/17/2009 12/09/2009 12/28/2009 01/06/2010 01/12/2010 01/12/2010 01/13/2010
01/13/2010 01/13/2010 02/01/2010 02/02/2010 02/05/2010
02/16/2010

1471 Joint MOTION for Judgment by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 01/21/2009)

1472

JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern ; entering judgment in favor of Independent Auditor's Administrative Assistant, Martin A. Brown, in the amount of $9,000.00 against City of Tulsa ; granting 1471 Motion for Judgment (Documents Terminated: 1471 Joint MOTION for Judgment ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 02/02/2009)

1473 Joint STIPULATION To Suspend Reporting &Payments (Re: 1469 Order, Referring Document(s)/Issue(s) ) by Tulsa, City of, All Plaintiffs (Wohlgemuth, Joel) Modified on 2/4/2009 to add filer (lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 02/03/2009)

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: Not all filers were selected when filed; Correction: Edited docket text and added All Plaintiffs as a filer (Re: 1473 Stipulation ) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

1474

ORDER by Judge Terence Kern that the filing of periodic reports by the City of Tulsa is suspended pending completion of the settlement process, and the City of Tulsa is not under obligation to make futher payments to the Independent Auditor or his administrative assistant. (Re: 1473 Stipulation ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 02/11/2009)

1475 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern Journal Entry of Judgment Upon Agreed Settlement of Attorneys' Fees Claim, awarding attorney fees to Plaintiffs and against Defendant City of Tulsa (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

1476 MOTION for Protective Order by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 12/09/2009)

1477 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1476 MOTION for Protective Order ) by World Publishing Company ; (Titus, J) (Entered: 12/28/2009)

1478 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 1476 MOTION for Protective Order ) by Tulsa, City of ; (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 01/06/2010)

1479 MOTION to Seal Document by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) Modified on 1/13/2010 to change text to reflect correct event (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1480 MOTION Terminate Consent Decree (Re: 1028 Order ) by Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: wrong event selected (Motion for Leave to File Document); Correction: changed text to reflect correct event (Motion to Seal Document) (Re: 1479 MOTION to Seal Document ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1481 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; granting 1479 Motion to Seal Document(s) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1482 SEALED DOCUMENT (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1483 MOTION to Clarify on Response to Motion to Terminate Consent Decree (Re: 1480 MOTION Terminate Consent Decree ) by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 (Moore, James) (Entered: 02/01/2010)

1484 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern Intervenor has until 2/26/10 to respond ; granting 1483 Motion to Clarify (Re: 1480 MOTION Terminate Consent Decree ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 02/02/2010)

1485 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): (copy of notice mailed to Schaad Titus) ( Motion Hearing set for 2/16/2010 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy) (Re: 1476 MOTION for Protective Order ) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/05/2010)

1486 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): Courtroom #1, 3rd floor ( Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2010 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy) (Re: 1476 MOTION for Protective Order ) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/16/2010)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 112 of 115

02/16/2010 02/23/2010
02/24/2010 02/24/2010 02/25/2010 02/25/2010
03/05/2010 03/05/2010 03/16/2010 03/16/2010 03/17/2010 03/17/2010 03/17/2010 03/17/2010
03/17/2010 03/17/2010

1487 LETTER from Joel Wohlgemuth regarding rescheduled hearing (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/16/2010)

1488

MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy: Motion Hearing held on 2/23/2010, striking/terminating deadline(s)/Hearing(s), setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 2/26/2010), taking motion(s) under advisement (Re: 1476 MOTION for Protective Order ) (Court Reporter: C1) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/23/2010)

1489 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Terminate Consent Decree (Re: 1480 MOTION Terminate Consent Decree ) by All Plaintiffs (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 02/24/2010)

1490 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Responses due by 3/8/2010, Replies due by 3/22/2010); granting 1489 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion (Re: 1480 MOTION Terminate Consent Decree ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 02/24/2010)

1491 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) (Re: 1480 MOTION Terminate Consent Decree ) by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 (Vernier, Douglas) (Entered: 02/25/2010)

1492

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern Intervenor has until 3/08/10 to respond to the Motion to Terminate Consent Decree, with replies due 3/22/10 ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Responses due by 3/8/2010, Replies due by 3/22/2010); granting 1491 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) (Re: 1491 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s), 1480 MOTION Terminate Consent Decree ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 02/25/2010)

1493 Joint MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) to file objections to Def. City's Motion to Terminate Consent Decree by All Plaintiffs, Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 03/05/2010)

1494 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Responses due by 3/17/2010, Replies due by 3/31/2010); granting 1493 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) (Re: 1480 MOTION Terminate Consent Decree ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 03/05/2010)

1495 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit A to upcoming Response to Defendants' Motion to Terminate Consent Decree by All Plaintiffs (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2010)

1496 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; granting 1495 Motion to Seal Document(s) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 03/16/2010)

1497 MOTION to Seal Document by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 (Moore, James) (Entered: 03/17/2010)

1498 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; granting 1497 Motion to Seal Document(s) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 03/17/2010)

1499 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 (Moore, James) (Entered: 03/17/2010)

1500

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Responses due by 3/18/2010, Replies due by 4/1/2010); granting 1499 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) (Re: 1480 MOTION Terminate Consent Decree ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 03/17/2010)

1501 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1480 MOTION Terminate Consent Decree ) by All Plaintiffs ; (With attachments) (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 03/17/2010)

1502 SEALED DOCUMENT (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 03/17/2010)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 113 of 115

03/18/2010 03/30/2010 03/31/2010 03/31/2010 04/08/2010 04/08/2010 05/12/2010 05/12/2010 05/12/2010 05/12/2010
05/18/2010 05/19/2010
05/19/2010
05/27/2010 05/27/2010
05/27/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010

1503 SEALED DOCUMENT (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

1504 OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 1476 Motion for Protective Order (FHM1, Chambers) (Entered: 03/30/2010)

1505 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 1480 MOTION Terminate Consent Decree ) by Tulsa, City of ; (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 03/31/2010)

1506 MOTION to Seal Document (Re: 1505 Reply to Response to Motion ) by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 03/31/2010)

1507 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; granting 1506 Motion to Seal Document(s) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 04/08/2010)

1508 SEALED DOCUMENT (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 04/08/2010)

1509 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Hearing set for 5/19/2010 at 10:30 AM before Judge Terence Kern) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

1510 MOTION for Sanctions for Determination of Violation of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order by All Plaintiffs (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

1511 MOTION to Rescind Support for Formal Settlement Agreement by All Plaintiffs (Bullock, Louis) Modified on 5/21/2010 to seal pdf as this document is WITHDRAWN per 1515 (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 05/12/2010)

1512

EXHIBIT(S) in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Determination of Violation of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order (Re: 1510 MOTION for Sanctions for Determination of Violation of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order ) by All Plaintiffs (With attachments) (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

1513 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1511 MOTION to Rescind Support for Formal Settlement Agreement ) by Tulsa, City of ; (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

1514 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, referring motion(s) to Magistrate Judge McCarthy (Re: 1510 MOTION for Sanctions for Determination of Violation of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 05/19/2010)

1515

MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Judge Terence Kern: Motion Hearing held on 5/20/2010 ; striking/terminating deadline(s)/Hearing(s); granting 1480 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; striking/withdrawing 1511 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Re: 1511 MOTION to Rescind Support for Formal Settlement Agreement, 1480 MOTION Terminate Consent Decree ) (Court Reporter: Terri Beeler)Modified on 5/21/2010 to correct filing date (cds, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 05/20/2010)

1516 Unopposed MOTION To Disclose October 29, 2009 Agreement in Principle by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 05/27/2010)

1517 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion (Re: 1510 MOTION for Sanctions for Determination of Violation of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order ) by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 (Vernier, Douglas) (Entered: 05/27/2010)

***Motion(s) Referred to Magistrate Judge McCarthy (Re: 1516 Unopposed MOTION To Disclose October 29, 2009 Agreement in Principle ) (tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/28/2010)

1518 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting 1516 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/28/2010)

1519 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Responses due by 6/15/2010, Replies due by 6/29/2010); granting 1517 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion (Re: 1510 MOTION for Sanctions for Determination of Violation of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 114 of 115

06/02/2010 06/15/2010 06/16/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010
06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/23/2010
06/23/2010 06/29/2010 06/29/2010 07/01/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010 08/02/2010

and Settlement Conference Order ) (jcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/28/2010)

1520 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1510 MOTION for Sanctions for Determination of Violation of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order ) by Tulsa, City of ; (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 06/02/2010)

1521 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1510 MOTION for Sanctions for Determination of Violation of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order ) by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 ; (Vernier, Douglas) (Entered: 06/15/2010)

1522 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 1510 MOTION for Sanctions for Determination of Violation of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order ) by All Plaintiffs ; (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 06/16/2010)

1523 Joint MOTION Emergency Order in Aid of Settlement by All Plaintiffs, Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

1524

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern : It is hereby ordered that the Fraternal Order of the Police, Lodge No. 93, is directed to file a response to the Joint Motion for Emergency Order in Aid of Settlement [Dkt. #1523] by 6/24/2010, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Responses due by 6/24/2010) (Re: 1523 Joint MOTION Emergency Order in Aid of Settlement ) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

1525 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Gerald M Bender on behalf of Tulsa, City of (Bender, Gerald) (Entered: 06/21/2010)

1526 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Settlement Conference set for 6/23/2010 at 05:00 PM before Chief Judge Claire V Eagan) (Re: 1523 Joint MOTION Emergency Order in Aid of Settlement ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 06/21/2010)

1527

MINUTE ORDER by Chief Judge Claire V Eagan : The expedited settlement conference is hereby reset from June 23, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. to June 23, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2 on the fourth floor of the Page Belcher Building before the Honorable Claire V. Eagan., setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Settlement Conference set for 6/23/2010 at 01:30 PM before Chief Judge Claire V Eagan) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/23/2010)

1528 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 1523 Joint MOTION Emergency Order in Aid of Settlement ) by Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93 ; (With attachments) (Moore, James) (Entered: 06/23/2010)

1529 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 1510 MOTION for Sanctions for Determination of Violation of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order ) by All Plaintiffs ; (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 06/29/2010)

1530 MOTION to reopen discovery regarding violations of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order (Re: 1510 MOTION for Sanctions for Determination of Violation of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order ) by All Plaintiffs (Bullock, Louis) (Entered: 06/29/2010)

1531 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern The reply deadline is stayed until further notice (Re: 1523 Joint MOTION Emergency Order in Aid of Settlement ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 07/01/2010)

1532 NOTICE Status of Settlement and Request for Extension by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 07/30/2010)

1533 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) to submit Camera Order (SUBMITTED AS DOC # 1532 ) (Re: 1532 Notice (Other) ) by Tulsa, City of (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/02/2010)

NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: Document No. 1532 is a mutli−event document and only one part was filed; Correction: Filed the second event as Document No. 1533 (Re: 1532 Notice (Other), 1533 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) to submit Camera Order (SUBMITTED AS DOC # 1532 ) ) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/02/2010)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:94-cv-00039-TCK-FHM As of: 09/13/2010 11:51 PM CDT Page 115 of 115

08/03/2010
08/20/2010 08/23/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 09/08/2010
09/08/2010 09/08/2010

1534

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern camera order and agreed termination order should be submitted by 8/20/10 ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 8/20/2010); granting 1533 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 08/03/2010)

1535 MOTION to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Settlement Deadline(s)/Conference Notice of Status of Settlement and Request for Extension by Tulsa, City of (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

1536 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern parties to submit the agreed Camera Order and agreed Order terminating the Consent Decree on or before August 27, 2010 ; granting 1535 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Settlement Deadline(s)/Conference (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 08/23/2010)

1537 Joint MOTION to Approve Supplemental Settlement Agreement by All Plaintiffs, Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93, Tulsa, City of (With attachments) (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 08/27/2010)

1538 SEALED DOCUMENT (Wohlgemuth, Joel) (Entered: 08/27/2010)

1539

JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern ORDER AND JUDGMENT terminating Consent Decree and approving Supplemental Settlement Agreement ; dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) ; granting 1537 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Documents Terminated: 1523 Joint MOTION Emergency Order in Aid of Settlement, 1530 MOTION to reopen discovery regarding violations of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order MOTION to reopen discovery regarding violations of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order, 1510 MOTION for Sanctions for Determination of Violation of Local Civil Rule 16.2(i) and Settlement Conference Order ) (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 09/08/2010)

1540 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern ORDER AND JUDGMENT on Cameras (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 09/08/2010)

1541 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, awarding attorney fees to Plaintiffs and against Defendant City of Tulsa (vah, Chambers) (Entered: 09/08/2010)

 
 ',:;..

Ul'ITED STArES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:
LODGE #93 OF TIlE FRATER'iAL ORDER OF POLICE.
Petition~r.

CITY OF TULSA. OKL\HO\lA. Petitioner.

I No. 02-5154

ORDER

rdrt":;l Fisher

~,~

Filed November 26, 2002 C1C!;li,U.S.Cou~or ,

f.;;)}2c;!uls, Tenth Circuit

----------------------~~~,.---

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO. and HARTZ, Circuit J

Under 28 C.S.C ~ 455, a judge must recuse not only from any proceeding in which he or she has actual personal bias or prejudice or extrajudicial knowledge of disputed evidentiary fact.'S, but also must recuse if the circumstances are such that the judge's "impartiality might reasonably bc questioned." Petitioners in these consolidated actions request a writ of mandamus from this
court directing the recusal of Judge Sven Erik Holmes in Johnson v. City of Tulsa, '10. 94-CV-39-H(M). now pending in the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Oklahoma. Because petitioners have failed to demonstrate "a clear and indisputable right to relief ... [and] a clear abuse of discretion, or conduct by the distrtct court amounting to a usurpation of judicial authority," see Nichols v. Alley. 71 F.Jd 347. 350 (10th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted), the demanding standard for mandamus relief has not been satisfied, and the petitions are denied.
Background Summary This case began in January of 1994 when certain African-American members of the Tulsa Police Depanment filed suit against the City of Tulsa (City) allcging race discrtmination in various aspects of their employment. The case was originally asslgned TO Judge Terry C. Kern, and, almost from the beginning, the parties engaged in a series of settlement negotiations. In April 1995, the case was reassigned from Judge Kern to Judge Holmes. A series of settlement conferences \vas held in the summer of 1998 under the direction of a magistrate judge and later, in the fall of 1998, under the direction of Judge Holmes. When those efforts failed, the case returned to the "trial track" with Judge Holmes continuing as the trial judge assigned. After almost three years of discovery, the parties requested another opportunity to settle the case in 2001, and Judge Lee R. West was assigned to preside over further settlement negotiations. As will be discussed more fully below, by the spring of2002 the
-2-

parties had arrived at a consent decree \vhich, although initially accepted by the court, was eventually rt:]t:C'tcd. The case has now been set for a bench trial before Judge Holmes.
On May 2, 2002, the FrJ.tl.":rnai Order of Police Lodge # 93 (the FOP) filed a motion to intervene \\'11ich h;1::; ::;\ncc been granted. On August 14,2002, two days before the court rCH:ct!...'d the consent decree, the FOP filed a motion to disqualify Judge Holmos unJer 28 L S.c. § 455(a) and § 455(b)(l). The City filed a similar motion limited to disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Judge Holmes denied both motions. The FOP and the City have now both filed mandamus petitions with this court requesting an order directing Judge Holmes to recuse from further invoh cment in this matter based on his earlier participation in the settlement negotIations.
Analysis
Recusal General(v
Ordinarily, we review a refusal to recuse for abuse of discretion. Afaez v. Mountain Slales Tel. & Tel, fIlC., 54 F.3d 1488, 1508 (10th Cir. 1995). Where, however, a final order in !he underlying case h~s not been issued and the order denying a motion to recuse is interlocutory and thus not immediately appealable, a petition for writ of mandamus is the proper vehicle by which to challenge a refusal to recuse. l'v'ichols, 71 F.3d at 350. Because this case comes to us in the
-3-

form of petitions for \\ rlt of mandamus, the higher standard dictated by mandamus jurisprudence applies. Id, Thus, petitioners can prevail only by demonstrating "a clear nnd indisputable right to relief ... [and] a clear abuse of discretion, or conduct by the district court amounting to a usurpation of judicial authority." Id.
Two statutes can be Inv()I\'l~d in recusal matters: 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Petilloners did not file the affidavits required under § 144, choosing instead to procced exclusively under § 455.
Section 455, in rc!c\'ant part, provides: (a) Any justice. Judge. or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify hlmsc\ f in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify hirnselfin the following circumstances:
(1) \Vherc he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts conce1 28 U.S.C. § 455. "In order to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process, the statute was broadened in 1974 by replacing the subjective standard with an objective test.·· Vlc/tois, 71 F.3d at 350 (quotation omitted). While the two subsections of § 455 quoted above are similar, subsection (a) is broader in scope.
-4-

[W]hile subsection (b)( I) requires recusal if the judge has actual personal bias or prejudice ur extrajudicial knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts. subsection (a) requires recusal merely if the circumstances arc such that the judge's impartiality might be reasonably questioned. . Under section 455(a), the judge is
- under a continu!llll: dutv- to ask himself what a reasonable person
knowing all the relevant bcts would think about his impartiality.
Franks v. Nimmo. 796 F 2d 1230. 1234 (10th Cir. 1986) (quotations omitted).
The "appearanct! of impartlality is virtually as important as the fact of
impartiality." Webbe \ . .lfcGJl/c Land Tirle Co., 549 F.2d 1358, 1361 (10th Cir.
1977). "[W]hat matters [under subsection (a)l is not the reality of bias or
prejudice but its appearance." Uleky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994).
The goal of section 455(a) IS to avoid even the appearance of partiality. Ifit \vould appear to a reasonable person that ajudge has knowledge of facts that \vould give him an interest in the litigation then an appearance of partiality is created even though no actual partiality exists because the judge does not recall the facts, because the judge actually has no Interest in the case or because the judge is pure in heart and incorruptible.
Liljeberg v. Health Sen's. Acqulsllion Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988) (quotation
and citation omitted).
Recusal cases are extremely fact intensive. Nichols, 71 F .3d at 351. One
of the facts that will be insufficient to force recusal, however, is mere familiarity
with the parties or facts of a case that a judge has acquired from earlier
participation in judicial proceedings. Frates v. Weinshienk, 882 F.2d 1502, 1506
-5-

(10th eir. 1989). The corollary to this principle is the extrawjudicial source
doctrine.
In oversimplified terms, the extra-judicial source doctrine requires that,
in order to be the basIs for disqualification, the alleged judicial bias or prejudice
must have arisen from a source outside judicial proceedings. In Liteky, the
Supreme Court noted the Idea 1S less than clear and that "it would be better to
speak of the existence ofa significant (and often determinative) 'extrajudicial
source'factor, than oLm ·ex.trajudicial source' doctrine." Liteky, 510 U.S. at
554-55. Liteky held that the "extrajudicial source" doctrine applies to § 455(a),
as well as to § 455(b)( I), but in the course of the opinion Justice Scalia explained
that "there is not much doctrine to the doctrine." [d. at 554.
The fact that an opinion held by a judge derives from a source outside judicial proceedings is not a necessary condition for "bias or prejudice" recusal. since predispositions developed during the course of a trial will sometimes (albeit rarely) suffice. Nor is it a sufficient condition for "bias or prejudice" rccusal, since some opinions acquired outside the context of judicial proceedings (for example, the judge's view of the law acquired in scholarly reading) will not suffice.
[d. Justice Scalia concluded that "neither the presence of an extrajudicial source
necessarily establishes bias, nor the absence of an extrajudicial source necessarily
precludes bias." [d.
Thus, under Litek:\.,·, the source of ajudge's knowledge is a factor in the
analysis, although not a dispositive one. "[O]pinions formed by the judge on the
-6-

basis of facts introduced or c\-cnts ol..:curring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior procecdmgs. do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they diSplay LI deep~sealedfavoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgmcl/t IIllposslhie.·· Id. at 555 (emphasis added). Application to this Case
Actual bias under >: ..j.~5!l))( 11 As mentioned abu, c. the FOP argues that, under § 455(b)(1), Judge Holmes is actually biLlsl.'u III this marteL In support of this position, the fOP cites us to various cOlllments and qucs[tons from Judge Holmes made during the coursc of proceedings and upon the court's initial acceptance of the consent decree. When the judgc·s comments and questioning are put in the context of the proceedings where the statemcnts and comments occurred, ho\vevcr, the FOP's contention of actual bias falls. In its questioning orthe FOP counsel and in questioning members of the Tulsa Police Department (most importantly Officer Rink) at the heanng on the FOP's motion to intervene, the court \vas only trying to determine in the first instance what counsel for rhe FOP knC\v and \vhen he knew it in order to understand why the FOP delayed so long in seeking to intervene as a party to this litigation. As regards the questioning of Officer Rink, the court ,,"vas trying to understand whether Officer Rink was acting on behalfofthe City in gathering
-7-

information from police personnel files and~ if so, whether by these acts the City was working to sub\'Crt the proposed settlement decree through information gathered by Officer Rink and gl\'Cn to the FOP, \vhen counsel for the City and representatives of the ('lIy wac telling the court that the City supported and agreed to the settlement provIsIons. This inquiry was valid and, indeed, was required by the court In order to determine if there was truly an agreement and whether that agreement would be workable.
[<urther, the FOP's actual bias argument is much deflated by two rulings of the district court. The J!Strlct court is alleged by the FOP to be champIOning the terms of the settlement decree. The FOP argues the 2002 proposed settlement decree was sImilar to the 11)98-00 attempted settlement in which Judge Holmes was involved. But. the fact that Judge Holmes rejected the 2002 proposed settlement is strong c\'idcnce that the court had no actual bias concerning its terms or the terms ofrhe 1998-99 discussion. Further, the FOP was concerned that the court was prejudIced agaInst it and would not pennit its intervention. The chronology of events is important here. The FOP had filed a motion to intervene on May 2, 2002. The FOP filed its motion to disqualify in district court on August 14,2002. The court denied its motion to disqualify and that of the City on August 29, 2002, in two separate orders. But, the court granted the FOP's motion to intervene on September 10,2002. \Ve agree with plaintiffs that it is
-8-

difficult for the rop to show actual bias by the COlirt when the court ruled in its favor at two critical juncurcs: (1) tTJcctlOn of the proposed settlement decree, and (2) permIssion to imen-cnc. The portions of the record cited to us by the FOP do not sustain a showIng or' Jctuul bins.
Appearance of Hi:l:> under';;' '+')5(a) In analYLing petItIoners' :Irgumcnt that Judge Holmes should recuse because of the appearance of bias, we determine "what a reasonable person knowing all the relevant fUCIS \\'ouIJ think about [the judge's] impartiality,." Franks, 796 F.2d at 123-+ (qUOtatIon omitted). After our review of the particular circumstances presented here, \\-c cannot agree that a reasonable person knowing the facts would conclude rhere is an appearance of bias. Here, <lgain, chronology IS Important. Judge Holmes' involvement in the first round of negotiatIons occurred in 1998. Although the judge noted there was no cvidt'nce that he was In\·ohcd 10 any negotiations in 1999, he was certain he \vas not involved after February 1999. After February 1999, the case returned to the "trial track" with Judge Holmes as the trial judge, and discovery ensued. The docket sheet of the distnct court shows Judge Holmes was actlvely involved in the resolution of discovery disputes and other pretrial motions during this approximately three-y'car pCflod. The parties came to the court on November 28, 200 1, and asked that the case be returned to mediation, referencing in part that
-9-

further work on the case by both sIdes, including additional discovery, caused them to believe settlement mIght now be possible, At that point, a new settlement negotiation began with Judge Lee R. West serving as the settlement judge. On April 1. 2002, a proposed consent decree signed by all parties was filed with the court under seal. On \luy 2. 2002, the FOP sought to intervene and on May 22, 2002, the FOP filed :.l motion asking the court to reject the decree. After the fairness hearing, "hich was conducted July 15, 16, & 17,2002 (and in which the FOP was permitted to fully participate), the City withdrew its support of the settlement on August I (), :002. und therefore the court rejected the proposed decree on that same date.
With this chronology In mInd. we conclude that a reasonable person viewing this case and the representations made by the FOP and the City would not find that Judge Holmes continuing as the trial judge in this case presents the appearance of bias. His w\"olvement in settlement conferences was in latc 1998 through February 1999, followed by almost three years of discovery and then settlement negotiations before a different judge, commencing sometime after November 28, 2001, which did not produce a proposed settlement until April 1, 2002. Judge Holmes' prior contact with settlement negotiations is simply too attenuated to give risc to the appearance of bias. There are policy concerns strongly favoring the separation of trial functions from settlement negotiations;
-10-

nevertheless, while we \\ ould discourage the trial bench from trying cases in which ajudge bas participated at lhe- sc:tl!ement stage, we see nothing 10 the Circumstances of thIs (,;:..!s"; lhill \\'(')uIJ create an appearance of bias. Further, as we have stated in Willner \. /. '1Iil'L'/"XI!\ oi Kansas. 848 F.2d 1023,1028 (10th Cir. i (88), a motion to recuse und~r:: "':-:;31il) must be timely filed. The City, \vhich was a party throughout. did not raIse: any objection to Judge Holmes presiding as trial Judge when the case r<.'lurnr.:d l\) Inc discovery and trial track in February 1999 after the settlement m:gollallons over which he had presided failed.
Conclusion Because Judge Ifolrncs' kno\\ ledge arises from proceedings conducted pursuant to Fed. R. Ci\' P 1(). dnu I::, thus not "extra-judicial," petitioners must show that the opinions formed by Judge Holmes on the basis orhis participation in early settlement talks ""display u J~ep-seated favoritism or antagonism that \vould make fair Judgmenllmpossiblc." Litek.V, 510 U.S. at 555. Givt:n all the facts and circumstances of thiS casco petitioners have failed to meet this standard and have similarly failed 10 demonstrate their clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief.
-11-

,
The City's motion to supplement the appendix is GRANTED. The petitions for writ of mandamus ,If(: DE\!IED. The emergency motion for stay of court proceedings fi!~d \\'11h rhls court on November 15,2002, is DENIED.
Entered for the Court PATRICK FISHER, Clerk
-12-

Patrick.1. Fisher, Jr. Clerk ofCourt

United ~tes Court of Appeals for the Tenl"-f'ircuit

<

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

,

Byron While United Stat~s Courthouse .

1823 Stollt Street

Denver, Colorado 80257

(303)844-3157

November 26, 2002

Jane B. Howell ChicfDeputy Clerk

NOTIFICATION OF MAILING

Re:

02-5142, In re: Lodge #93 FOP

02-5154, In re: City of Tulsa

Dist/Ag docket: 94-CV-39-H

A COPY OF THE ATTACHED ORDER HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE UNITED STATES MAIL THIS DATE, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS,
Mr. James E. Phillips
Mr. Douglas L. Rogers Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease
S2 East Gay Street
P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43216-1008
Mr. Scott B. Wood 15 E. Fifth St. 3600 First Place Tower
Tulsa, Ok 74103
Mr. Loren F. Gibson McCaffrey & Gibson
6301 Waterford Blvd. Suite 401 Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Mr. Louis W. Bullock Ms. Patricia Whittaker Bullock Mr. Robert M. Blakemore
Bullock & Bullock 320 S. Boston
Suite 718 Tulsa, OK 74103
Jean W. Coulter 1638 S. Carson Suite 1127 Tulsa, OK 74119
Mr. Joel L. Wohlgemuth Norman, Wohlgemuth, Chandler & Dowdell
2900 Mid-Continent Tower 401 S. Boston Ave. Tulsa, OK 74103

Ms. Martha Rupp Carter
Mr. Larry V. Simmons Asst. City Attorney Office of the City Attorney
200 Civic Center
Room 316 Tulsa, OK 74103

Honorable Sven Erik Holmes District Judge United States District Court for the N. District of Oklahoma 333 W. Fourth Street United States Courthouse Tulsa, OK 74103

Mr. Phil Lombardi
Clerk United States District 333 W. Fourth Street Room 411 United States Tulsa, OK 74103

Court for the N.
Courthouse

District

of Oklahoma

A.J. Schuler

DEPUTY CLERK

 
 489 F.3d 1089 (2007)
Roy C. JOHNSON; Mark A. Moore; Dwight E. Jackson; Steven L. Gibbs; Deborah J. Daniels-Fleak; Debbie R. Crisp; Debra D. Dickens; Tammara McKinney-Olden; Rufus E. 1090 Newsome; Tyrone D. Lynn; Marvin Blades; Walter *1090 E. Busby, Jr.; Derrek L. Lewis; Ray
D. Nelson; Cornelius D. Finley; Gary L. Pitts; Albert L. Young, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
CITY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA; Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93, DefendantsAppellees.
No. 05-5064.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
June 14, 2007.
Louis W. Bullock (Robert M. Blakemore with him on the brief), of Miller, Keffer & Bullock, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Joel L. Wohlgemuth (David R. Ross with him on the brief), of Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler & Dowdell, Tulsa, Oklahoma, (Larry V. Simmons, Tulsa City Attorney's Office, Tulsa, Oklahoma, with him on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.
Before HARTZ, EBEL, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
The question presented on appeal is whether a prevailing party in a class-action civil-rights lawsuit is entitled to attorney fees for post-consent-decree efforts that resulted in no court order or judgment. The district court held that such a party is not. We hold that attorney fees may be awarded for efforts to preserve the fruits of the decree. When, as in this case, the consent decree establishes mechanisms for ensuring proper treatment of 1091 class members, attorney fees are compensable for *1091 reasonable efforts to ensure that those mechanisms are properly functioning. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
In 1994 Roy Johnson, a Tulsa police officer, filed a complaint against the City of Tulsa (City) alleging that it had discriminated on the basis of race in employment practices. In 1998 the district court certified the case as a class action with a number of named plaintiffs. The class, consisting of all current and future African-American officers of the Tulsa Police Department (TPD), asserted that the City had engaged in various civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) was granted leave to intervene as a defendant.
After extensive litigation the parties entered into a consent decree (the Decree) that was approved by the court on May 12, 2003. The Decree is a lengthy document with a number of provisions.
A. The Decree
1. Community Relations
Some provisions of the Decree appear designed more to help the community than the members of the plaintiff class. Section 2 of the Decree requires the City to apply for accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA), whose purpose is "to develop a set of law enforcement standards; and to establish and administer an accreditation process through which law enforcement agencies could demonstrate voluntarily that they meet professionally-recognized criteria for excellence in management and

service delivery." R. Vol. III at 328. The City must continue to meet CALEA standards and reapply for accreditation every three years.
Likewise, § 12 requires the City to review its training curriculum to ensure that the "training supports the objectives of the Court's Decree to unify the Department and the Community," id. at 337-38, and to prepare a report of its findings and "the steps taken to implement them," id. at 338. Section 16 prohibits racial bias in policing and requires the City to adopt and implement policies promoting cooperation between police officers and citizens. And § 17 requires the City to implement policies to create a partnership between the TPD and members of the community.
2. Antidiscrimination Provisions
Other Decree provisions forbid discrimination in hiring, promotion, and police operations, and require specific 1092 procedures to give officers a fair opportunity for advancement. Section 5[1] sets out the *1092 process for making
specialty assignments (assignments that are not bid under the regular bid process) within the TPD. Subsection 5.1 requires that "[a]ll specialty assignments . . . be made on the basis of merit and fitness," and § 5.2 requires that the TPD post specialty-assignment vacancies and that the posting include information about the position such as the "assignment, the job description, minimum qualifications of that assignment and preferred qualifications." Id. at 331-32. Subsection 5.4 specifies that the Major shall accept applications and make a recommendation for each position to the Deputy Chief, who will then forward that recommendation and his or her own recommendation to the Chief of Police for a final decision. All applicants must be notified of the final decision. Subsection 5.5 requires the TPD to adopt and implement a policy "prohibiting those in the chain of command of positions being filled from directly or indirectly recruiting persons to apply for a specialty assignment other than through" the new announcement procedure, unless no qualified person applies for the position during the three weeks following the posting. Id. at 332. Subsection 5.6 states that the minimum requirements for each specialty assignment must directly relate to the requirements of the position, and § 5.7 provides that the TPD may not open the position to all applicants unless no one meets those minimum qualifications.
Section 6, which addresses recruiting, provides that "all hiring shall be based on merit and fitness." Id. at 334. The TPD must establish a recruiting task force to evaluate and develop strategies for recruiting, including the recruitment of women and minorities. To "attract and retain applicants," id., the TPD must offer temporary employment opportunities to those accepted to the police academy. Section 7 states that promotions must be based on merit and fitness. Section 9 requires the City to ensure "that all supervisors enjoy all of the rights and privileges which normally accompany" their rank, id. at 336. (This provision is apparently a response to allegations that African-American supervisors did not receive proper deference from subordinates). Section 13[2] 1093 requires the City to "adopt and implement a policy" *1093 forbidding retaliation "directed at any officer or civilian raising matters of public concern, including but not limited to, claims of racial, gender, religious, or national origin discrimination." Id. at 339. And § 14 requires the City to adopt a policy describing the obligation of officers to provide back-up support for other officers and to investigate complaints of backing failures.
3. Data-Collection Provisions
Two Decree provisions relate to data necessary to monitor compliance with the Decree's requirements. Section 3 requires the TPD to maintain a data-collection system that tracks information on each officer, including race, gender, assignments, training, performance ratings, complaints, discipline, traffic citations, arrests, and civil complaints. Section 27 adds to these obligations the requirement that the City maintain the "records necessary to document its compliance with the terms of th[e] Decree." Id. at 351. Subsection 27.3 grants access by the Independent Auditor (a monitoring position created by the Decree, to be discussed later) to a wide variety of TPD data and reports. Under § 27.4 "Counsel for Plaintiffs shall be provided access to the[se] documents and data . . . upon reasonable request to the City." Id. at 353. Subsections 27.4 and 27.5 state that Plaintiffs may also request other open records relevant to compliance and "shall have the right to share with Plaintiffs' Counsel information relevant to compliance with this Decree available to them over the Department's intranet." Id. In

addition, under § 27.8 "[t]he City shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel quarterly access to the Chief of Police." Id. at 354.
4. Compliance Mechanisms
The Decree also establishes mechanisms for overseeing compliance with antidiscrimination and other requirements. Section 11,[3] which addresses discipline within the TPD, reorganizes the Internal Affairs Section 1094 into two squads: the Investigations *1094 Squad, charged with investigating complaints, and the Audit and Inspections Squad, which must ensure that the TPD is "operating consistent[ly] with the Department's policies" by "conduct[ing] such investigations and audits of the Department's data as necessary." Id. at 336-37. Subsection 11.3 requires the City to "adopt and implement policies and procedures" to ensure that every stage of the disciplinary process, from the initiation of an investigation to the punishment given to an officer, is "free from racial and or gender discrimination." Id. at 337.
Section 21 creates a nine-member committee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma named the Dispute Avoidance and Resolution Committee (Dispute Resolution Committee). The members are to be three citizens proposed by the parties and selected by the district court, two members selected by the Plaintiffs, two senior members of the TPD selected by the City, and two selected by the FOP. Section 22 describes the Committee's "primary objective" as "to collect and review information regarding compliance from the Independent Auditor [created in § 26] and the City and then provide the Parties an opportunity to discuss issues concerning the requirements of this Decree, assist in the resolution of issues relevant to this Decree, and assist the Parties in avoiding future litigation over these matters."[4]Id. at 346. Section 23 gives the Committee the authority to act as an adjunct settlement judge under Local Rule 16.2 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in any settlement conference between the parties. If the Plaintiffs believe that the City has failed to fulfill any of its obligations under the Decree, § 25.2 requires that they give written notice of the alleged failure to the City and the Committee 45 days before initiating any court proceeding.
Section 26[5] creates an Independent Auditor, appointed by the court and paid by the City (no more than $36,000 1095 per year, unless essential to effectuate the Decree), who "shall perform a review of the City's *1095 compliance
with the terms of th[e] Decree and shall report to the Committee three (3) times a year as to the City's compliance." Id. at 350. The City is to provide the Independent Auditor with necessary access to persons and information. "The Independent Auditor's role is limited to compliance with th[e] Decree; the Independent Auditor is not a substitute for Internal Affairs or criminal investigations." Id.
5. Pre-Decree Discrimination
Sections 28 to 31 of the Decree address individual grievances arising from pre-Decree discrimination. Those with claims of race discrimination, retaliation, wrongful discharge, or harassment in employment that arose before August 1, 2001, could file in district court a sworn statement of their claim within 60 days of entry of the Decree (which was on May 12, 2003). Those found to have been wrongfully denied a promotion could recover all available Title VII relief, front pay, and back pay (up to $200,000), but no punitive damages. Those who established wrongful termination before August 1, 2001, could receive back and front pay up to $150,000 and all 1096 other available Title VII relief. For other *1096 claims that accrued before August 1, 2001, claimants could recover compensatory damages (including lost wages up to $10,000). With respect to all claims, successful individual claimants could recover attorney fees and expenses up to $3,000 and a one-time additional $10,000 in attorney fees and expenses for litigating the statute of limitations, discrimination in the promotion process, or discrimination and retaliation in discipline.

6. Miscellaneous
Under the Decree, the district court retains jurisdiction of the action. Section 32 provides that after five years the City may move for dissolution of the Decree upon a showing that it has been in substantial compliance for two years. Should the City move for dissolution, the Plaintiffs may object and present evidence at a court hearing. Both Parties agreed to defend the Decree against third-party attacks. Finally, the Decree states that Plaintiffs intended to move for attorney fees.
Many of the Decree's provisions were explained in a Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Fairness Hearing and Right to Object that the parties submitted to the court in December 2002. The purpose of the Notice was to inform class members of the provisions of the proposed Decree, and it contained much of the language included in the final Decree. At least one provision in the Notice differed from the Decree. Under the heading "Monitoring by Plaintiffs," the Notice stated, "The Decree provides opportunities for Plaintiffs to monitor compliance by requiring the City to provide their counsel with a number of documents, reports, and data." R. Vol. II at 175. Although the final Decree does give Plaintiffs' counsel access to certain documents, it contains no use of the word monitor.
B. Post-Degree Efforts
Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for their attorneys' post-Degree efforts. It is therefore essential to describe those efforts as best we can on the record before us.
1. Letters to the City
The record indicates that Plaintiffs' counsel wrote a number of letters expressing concerns about possible violations of the Decree. For example, apparently between September 25, 2003, and March 24, 2004, they sent seven letters to the City alleging violations of the "assignments provisions of the Consent Decree, with regard to [Debra] Dickens and [Ron] Clark." Pl.'s Reply to Resp. of City of Tulsa to Notice of Noncompliance at 2, Johnson v. City of Tulsa, No. 94-C-39-H (M) (N.D.Okla. May 28, 2004). The record, however, does not contain these letters, so we must infer their content (and hence the efforts by Plaintiffs' counsel) by descriptions of them in other documents discussed below.
2. Letter to the Independent Auditor
On October 29, 2003, Plaintiffs' counsel sent the Independent Auditor a letter alleging that the City had violated certain provisions of the Decree. Although the letter is not in the record, its contents are referenced in the Auditor's responses in his First Report to the Dispute Resolution Committee, dated December 16, 2003, and his Second Report, dated April 21, 2004. We summarize each allegation in the letter, as described by the Auditor, and his response:
(1) Counsel alleged that the City had violated § 5 of the Decree (relating to specialty assignments) with respect to two officers, Debra Dickens (a named Plaintiff) and Ron Clark. The First Report does not specify the claimed 1097 violations and responds *1097 only by stating that the Plaintiffs' concerns and allegations would be more appropriately addressed to the Internal Affairs Section and the Dispute Resolution Committee. The Auditor added that he would consider any reports issued by these two entities in his next status report. After reviewing additional information submitted by the Plaintiffs and the City, he concluded in his Second Report that the City was in compliance with regard to Officer Dickens but had violated § 5.2 with regard to Corporal Clark. The Auditor did not specify how the City had failed to comply with § 5.2, but noted that "when both the Dickens and Clark matters occurred, the Decree was less than a month old and the City had not yet incorporated the required protections mandated by the Decree." Indep. Auditor's Second Report to the Dispute Avoidance & Resolution Comm. (Second Report) at 3-4, id. (Apr. 21, 2004).

(2) Counsel alleged that the City had violated § 5.6 requirements regarding vacancy announcements for specialty assignments. The First Report responded that the City was in compliance because it was in the process of conducting the required review of such announcements. After receiving additional information from the City, the Auditor concluded in his Second Report that the City was in compliance with § 5.6.
(3) Counsel alleged that the City had not fully complied with the § 6 mandate to establish a recruiting task force. The First Report found the City in compliance, noting that Plaintiffs' concerns regarding composition of the task force were more properly addressed to the Dispute Resolution Committee. In the Auditor's Second Report he again found the City in compliance.
(4) Counsel alleged that the City had failed to offer temporary assignments to those accepted to the Tulsa Police Academy, in violation of § 6. Because no temporary-assignment positions had yet become available, the First Report stated that the Independent Auditor was unable to determine whether the City had complied with this provision. When he submitted his Second Report, no temporary positions had yet been identified, so he still was unable to determine compliance.
(5) Counsel alleged that the City had failed to enforce § 9 because "`insubordination towards black supervisors has been, and continues to be, a serious problem in the Department'" and the department had failed to take corrective action. Indep. Auditor's First Report to the Dispute Avoidance & Resolution Comm. (First Report) at 7 n. 9, id. (Dec. 16, 2003) (quoting one of Plaintiffs' letters to the Indep. Auditor (which are not in the record)). The First Report responded that these concerns should be addressed to the Internal Affairs Section and the Dispute Resolution Committee, and that the Auditor would consider any report issued by either entity in his next status report. The Second Report stated only that § 9 "requires no determination from the Independent Auditor." Second Report at 6.
(6) Counsel alleged that the City had failed to recognize publicly the Black Officer's Coalition, in violation of § 10. The First Report stated that although public recognition would be good, it was not required under the terms of the Decree. The Second Report stated that this section required no determination from the Independent Auditor.
(7) Counsel alleged that the City had violated the § 11.3 requirement that the disciplinary process be free from discrimination. The First Report responded that this concern should initially be addressed to the Internal Affairs 1098 Section and the Dispute Resolution Committee. The Second *1098 Report stated that after reviewing the information submitted by the City in its first Progress Report and Supplement, the Independent Auditor had determined that the City had complied with § 11.3 by providing a draft disciplinary policy to the Dispute Resolution Committee for its review.
(8) Counsel alleged that the City had failed to submit a report required under § 12 detailing its findings on how current officer training supported the Decree's objective of unifying the TPD and the community. The First Report agreed that the City had failed to submit the report. The Second Report found the City in compliance because it had "begun a review of Academy training and in-service curriculum," Second Report at 7, though it did not mention whether the required report had been provided.
(9) Counsel alleged that the City had failed to comply with § 17 regarding partnership in policing. Both the First and Second Reports found that the City had complied with this section because it had adopted and begun implementing CALEA standards.
3. Notice of Noncompliance
After the Independent Auditor's Second Report on April 21, 2004, Plaintiffs' counsel filed in district court on May 10, 2004, a Notice of Noncompliance. The Notice reasserted a number of allegations in the October 29, 2003, letter to the Auditor, because counsel believed that the Auditor had ignored evidence of violations when he found the City in substantial compliance with the Decree in his First and Second Reports. The following summarizes the specifications of noncompliance:

The Notice alleged several violations with respect to Corporal Ron Clark. The Second Report had found the City in violation of § 5.2 (without specifying the nature of the violation), although it commented that the violation had occurred less than a month after the effective date of the Decree. The Notice alleged that the City also (1) had violated § 5.1, which requires that all specialty assignments be made on the basis of merit and fitness, because it had awarded the Motorcycle Squad Corporal position to an officer who was less experienced than Corporal Clark, was in worse physical condition, and had performed worse on the motorcycle-riding exam; and (2) had violated § 5.4, which requires that the assignment decision be made by the Major, because the less-qualified officer had been selected by the Motorcycle Squad Sergeant and was "based in part upon an informal survey of the entire Motorcycle Squad." R. Vol. IV at 439. The Notice did not state whether Corporal Clark had filed a grievance with the Internal Affairs Section or whether the matter had been presented to the Dispute Resolution Committee.
The Notice alleged similar violations with respect to Officer Dickens, a named Plaintiff. It alleged that she had been denied two specialty assignments, one as Detective Division Investigator and one as Traffic Safety Coordinator, despite being more qualified than the white officers who received the assignments. The Notice asserted that Officer Dickens was qualified for the Detective Investigator position because of her 16 years' experience as a police officer and her prior experience as a Hit & Run and Fatality Investigator. It claimed that the City had justified its hiring of two white officers for the Detective Division positions after the fact by noting that one was good at serving warrants and was a former auto mechanic and that the other had prior knowledge of street crimes. According to the Notice of Noncompliance, because these qualifications were not listed in the posted job 1099 notices, *1099 the City had violated § 5.2, and because the appointments were not based on merit and fitness, the City had violated § 5.1. The Notice also alleged that despite having substantial experience directly relevant to the position, Officer Dickens had been passed over for a Traffic Safety Coordinator position that was instead given to an officer who had not even applied for the job, in violation of § 5.5. The Notice contained no information about whether Officer Dickens had brought her concerns to the Internal Affairs Section or the Dispute Resolution Committee.
Another alleged violation relating to Officer Dickens was the failure to provide her with requested back-up support on several occasions, in violation of § 14, which requires that officers back other officers in need. Moreover, the Internal Affairs Section had allegedly responded to the reported incidents by investigating Captain Busby, also a named Plaintiff, rather than the radio dispatcher, an incident of retaliation in violation of § 13.
The Notice further complained that the TPD's April 2004 decision to transfer officers from the Detective Division back into the field had violated § 5.1 of the Decree, which requires that assignments be made on the basis of merit and fitness. Sixteen officers, four of whom were black, had been transferred out of the Division. Of the four black officers, three were named Plaintiffs in the class-action suit. The City had given three different reasons why those particular officers had been transferred, none of which related to merit and fitness. The Notice also suggested that the transfers of these three officers were in retaliation for their role in the class action, in violation of § 13. Again, the Notice failed to state whether any of these concerns had been addressed to either the Internal Affairs Section or the Dispute Resolution Committee.
Officer Matt Wicks was also alleged to have suffered retaliation in violation of § 13. Officer Wicks had filed in district court, under the Decree provisions that authorized filing individual claims, a statement of claim alleging that in 1998 he had been denied a specialty assignment in the Mounted Patrol Unit because of his involvement in the TBOC. The Notice alleged that in retaliation for this claim, the City had begun a disciplinary investigation of Wicks, charging that his claims made false allegations against a fellow officer. When Wicks requested that the disciplinary investigation be halted, Police Chief Been declined, saying that the Decree required that he complete the investigation.
The final violation alleged by the Notice was the appointment of Bob Jackson, a former president of the FOP, to the Gang Unit. According to the Notice, not only was the position not posted, a violation of § 5.2, but the assignment was not made on the basis of merit and fitness as required by § 5.1, and he was recruited directly for the position, a violation of § 5.5.

In a May 18, 2004, response to the Notice of Noncompliance, the City pointed out that the Decree required Plaintiffs to submit any disputes to the Dispute Resolution Committee before initiating a court proceeding. Plaintiffs replied that they had provided the City with repeated notice of the alleged violations, including seven letters between September 25, 2003, and March 24, 2004, regarding Dickens and Clark, and that the City had merely denied that any violations had occurred. Moreover, they said, because the Auditor had found the City in compliance with the Decree, they felt that they had to respond to that finding in some way.
Plaintiffs took an additional step with respect to one alleged violation of the Decree. On June 8, 2004, they filed a 1100 motion for a preliminary injunction to halt retaliatory *1100 conduct against Officer Wicks. On June 21 the district
court referred this dispute to another judge for a settlement conference on June 23. On June 25 the court granted a motion to withdraw Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief, although the record does not indicate the terms of settlement.
The Notice of Noncompliance was referred to the Dispute Resolution Committee by the district court on June 21, 2004. Before the Committee acted, the Independent Auditor filed his Third Report on July 1, 2004. It recited the City's assertions that (1) the transfers out of the Detective Division had not been retaliatory, had been necessary because more officers were needed in the field, had been made under the FOP's Collective Bargaining Agreement with the TPD, and had not been the subject of a grievance or complaint by any of the transferred officers who were named Plaintiffs; (2) the assignment of Bob Jackson to the Gang Unit "`was not a normal special assignment'" but a response to an "`immediate need' for an officer with a `day shift weekends off' work schedule," and was a temporary assignment made under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Indep. Auditor's Third Report to the Dispute Avoidance & Resolution Comm. (Third Report) at 4 n. 3, Johnson v. City of Tulsa, No. 94-C-39-H (M) (July 1, 2004). The report found that the City had complied with § 5 regarding specialty assignments and § 13's prohibition on retaliation, although its only mention of a retaliation allegation was to note the settlement of the Wicks claim. It further found that the City had complied with § 14, regarding backing, because the City had ordered a full investigation into Officer Dickens's complaint that she had not received backing. Overall, the Report found no violation of the Decree.
At a meeting on July 30, 2004, the Dispute Resolution Committee decided that the issues identified in the Notice of Noncompliance should be referred to the adjunct settlement process. The district court adopted the recommendation on August 16, 2004, referring the Notice's allegations regarding (1) the failure to select Dickens as an investigator in the Detective Division; (2) the failure to assign Clark to the Motorcycle Squad; (3) the reassignment of three named Plaintiffs from the Detective Division to the field; and (4) the assignment of Jackson to the Gang Unit. Two weeks later it entered an order stating that the parties had settled the claims set forth in the Notice. Under the settlement Officer Dickens was offered a position with the Detective Division's Diversified Crimes Unit and Corporal Clark was assigned to the motorcycle unit. One of the named Plaintiffs previously transferred from the Detective Division was allowed to remain, while the other two named Plaintiffs who had been transferred selected other assignments. Also, the TPD agreed to draft and implement a new policy clarifying criteria for transfers. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claim with regard to Bob Jackson's assignment to the Gang Unit. In return the City agreed to "draft, enact and implement policy language which clarifies that, in the future, when a temporary or interim assignment is made to a position which is intended to be a permanent position, the City will announce the permanent assignment as open . . . and proceed to fill the position on the basis of merit and fitness." R. Vol. VII at 929.
4. Captain Poindexter Incident
After the Auditor filed on October 27, 2004, his Fourth Report, in which he found no instances of noncompliance, 1101 Plaintiffs' counsel filed another Notice of Noncompliance in district court on November 4. It *1101 addressed only
one claim, an alleged retaliatory and discriminatory disciplinary action against Captain Greg Poindexter, in violation of §§ 11.3 and 13 of the Decree. Captain Poindexter, an African-American, had applied to take a promotional exam to become a major. When he learned that a new component had been added to the exam, an oral resume, he criticized the innovation. He finished fourth on the exam, complained to one of the examiners about the unfairness of the new exam, and sought advice from the examiner on how he could improve his

candidacy. Police Chief Been learned of the conversation and ordered an investigation into whether Poindexter had violated TPD Rule 8, which provides that "`[o]fficers and employees shall not commit any act or indulge in any behavior, on or off duty, which tends to bring reproach or discredit upon the Department,'" and TPD Rule 10, which states that "officers may not publicly criticize the TPD in a `defamatory, obscene,' or `unlawful' manner." Id. at 960 (emphasis omitted). As a result of the investigation, Poindexter was suspended for 20 days and demoted three ranks from captain to officer. Plaintiffs' counsel gave the Dispute Resolution Committee written notice of these allegations on August 6, 2004, but the City failed to respond within the 45-day period allowed by the Decree. Counsel then contacted the City on September 22 and 29, 2004, to discuss settlement of these claims. The City responded: "The actions taken against Officer Poindexter were justified, and did not violate the Consent Decree. Nothing in the Consent Decree deprives the City from disciplining members of the Department who have violated Department policies and procedures." Id. at 988 (City's Resp. to Pls.' Sept. 22 Letter). It does not appear that Poindexter ever sought an investigation by the Internal Affairs Section.
On January 24, 2005, more than two months after filing the Notice, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a pleading that combined a motion for a temporary restraining order, a motion for a preliminary injunction, and a motion to supplement the notice of noncompliance. On January 14, 2005, Chief Been had notified Poindexter of a pretermination hearing arising from his alleged attempt to obtain improper reimbursement of medical expenses through his Flex Plan account, a violation of TPD Rule 6 requiring officers to be truthful. The pleading contended that (1) the investigation into the reimbursement issue, coming only seven days after the August 6 letter to the Dispute Resolution Committee alleging retaliation against Poindexter, was further retaliation, and (2) this degree of discipline violated the Decree's prohibition against racially motivated disparate discipline because it was harsher than that faced by white officers who had been accused of dishonest acts. The pleading therefore sought to enjoin the pretermination hearing and any subsequent termination of Officer Poindexter until the district court had ruled on the retaliation violations alleged in the November 4 Notice of Noncompliance. The pleadings relating to Poindexter were eventually dismissed on February 28, 2005, at the request of Plaintiffs' counsel. The record contains no explanation.
5. Attorney-Fee Request
Attorney fees in civil-rights litigation may be awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), which states that a court "in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." On February 4, 2005, Plaintiffs' counsel filed in district court an amended motion seeking reimbursement under § 1988 for attorney fees and expenses incurred in two activities: (1) pursuit of the original fee request, and 1102 (2) post-Degree monitoring *1102 and compliance efforts. The district court's award with respect to the first activity is not challenged on appeal.
With respect to the monitoring and enforcement activities, counsel sought approximately $96,000. At a March 1, 2005, hearing before the magistrate judge on the fee request, Plaintiffs' lead attorney Louis Bullock testified that his firm had "mostly . . . been responding to specific events which have been raised by officers where we believe there was a clear violation of the Consent Decree" and that it was "clear that the plaintiffs have a role" in monitoring and enforcing the Decree. Aplee. Supp. App. at 135. Plaintiffs should get attorney fees, he said, because "[t]he law in this circuit is that plaintiffs counsel in class actions have an obligation to monitor and enforce" consent decrees. Id. He continued, "[T]here's a clear legal obligation . . . to respond to the claims of individual class members who were treated in violation of the decree." Id. at 135-36. When asked whether these individual claims related to the original decree, he replied, "You're only there because you won." Id. at 136. In response to the City's argument that it was inappropriate to seek compensation for raising individual compliance claims, Mr. Bullock testified that "many of the things in the Consent Decree . . . are only demonstrated . . . in the treatment of an individual officer." Id. at 143. He noted in particular that retaliation and discrimination in specialty assignments were actions directed against individuals. In his view the existence of the Independent Auditor did not alter this duty, because "even where there is a monitoring or some type of a court process, . . . plaintiffs' counsel will continue to have their independent obligation to enforce the decree." Id. at 145. On crossexamination he conceded that he could have negotiated in the Decree a provision for payment of attorney fees incurred in monitoring compliance, and that the Decree lacked such a provision, but he reiterated that even

without it Plaintiffs had a monitoring role. He pointed out that there was no reason for Plaintiffs to be given copies of reports and documents if they were not in some way to be involved in monitoring the Decree.
The magistrate judge recommended that the request be denied under the Supreme Court's decision in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc., v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001). He stated, "[H]owever useful the actions taken by Plaintiffs' counsel in monitoring and seeking compliance with the Consent Decree may have been, since those activities did not produce an order or other decree in Plaintiff's [sic] favor, applying Buckhannon, the Court sees those activities as falling outside the terms of [42 U.S.C.] § 1988." R. Vol. VI at 646. Although acknowledging that this result might seem unfair because "the Consent Decree set up a procedure whereby Plaintiffs are required to present disputes concerning compliance to a Committee established by the Decree," the Decree did not "place Plaintiffs in charge of assuring compliance," and "no provision provide[d] for the payment of any fees related to Plaintiffs' monitoring activities." Id. at 647, 121 S.Ct. 1835. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation regarding post-Degree monitoring and Plaintiffs timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
We review a district court's award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion, reviewing its findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. See Browder v. City of Moab, 427 F.3d 717, 719 (10th Cir.2005).
1103 *1103 Plaintiffs contend that under Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986), they are entitled to reasonable attorney fees for monitoring the Decree. The City convinced the district court, and argues again on appeal, that the Supreme Court held in Buckhannon, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855, that only work that results in a court order or decree conveys "prevailing party" status for purposes of attorney-fee awards under § 1988, and that because none of the postDegree work of Plaintiffs' counsel resulted in a court order or decree, it is not compensable. We reach an intermediate position. To explain our conclusion we begin with an analysis of the leading cases relied on by the parties.
Under the traditional "American Rule," the "prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable attorneys' fee from the loser." Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 247, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). But 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and other fee-shifting statutes override the traditional rule and authorize attorney fees in certain circumstances. Congress enacted § 1988 to "ensure effective access to the judicial process for persons with civil rights grievances," Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted), the rationale being that individuals are more likely to seek redress if they have the possibility of recovering their attorney fees. Courts should therefore award fees to the prevailing party under § 1988 "unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." Id.
The question we must resolve on this appeal is the extent, if any, to which prevailing-party status attaches to the post-degree efforts of counsel for a class of plaintiffs who have obtained a consent decree. We begin by discussing precedent from the Supreme Court and our circuit suggesting that post-degree efforts may be compensable even in the absence of affirmative judicial relief.
A. Delaware Valley
The relevant Supreme Court decision is Delaware Valley. The Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air (Delaware Valley) had filed suit under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, to compel the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to enact a vehicle-emissions regulation program. See 478 U.S. at 549, 106 S.Ct. 3088. The parties entered into a consent decree, under the terms of which Pennsylvania agreed to enact an emissions program for several counties in the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas by August 1, 1980. In addition, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) would seek legislation to establish private emission-inspection franchises to implement the new emissions requirements. If the legislature did not approve the franchise system, PennDOT was to promulgate regulations certifying private garages to perform the emissions tests.
The plaintiffs' counsel was quite active after entry of the consent decree and sought attorney fees for those efforts. Although the specific issue before the Supreme Court was whether attorney efforts before administrative

agencies could be compensable, the Court's opinion plainly signals approval of compensation for all the described efforts by counsel, so it is instructive to include a rather full description.
The Court divided the activities following entry of the consent decree into nine phases. In Phase I Delaware 1104 Valley moved to hold Pennsylvania in contempt because the Pennsylvania legislature had *1104 refused to
authorize the franchise system and PennDOT had failed to promulgate the required regulations. But before the district court could rule on the motion, PennDOT published the regulations. See id. at 549-50, 106 S.Ct. 3088. The district court therefore did not hold the Commonwealth in contempt but ordered the parties to establish a revised schedule for implementation of the regulations. Phase II consisted of Delaware Valley's efforts to monitor Pennsylvania's performance and its submission of comments on the proposed regulations. In Phase III Delaware Valley reviewed and approved Pennsylvania's request for a ten-month extension of the August 1, 1980, deadline, which the district court granted. Phase IV concerned further efforts regarding extensions. By month six of the extension, Pennsylvania requested an additional two years. When the parties were unable to reach an agreement, Pennsylvania asked the district court to approve its request. Delaware Valley responded by seeking an order finding Pennsylvania in contempt and modifying the terms of the consent decree. The district court held Pennsylvania in contempt, refused to modify the decree, and denied Pennsylvania's requested extension, although a few months later it approved a one-year extension. Pennsylvania appealed both the district court's finding of contempt and its one-year extension, and lost both appeals. See id. at 550-51, 106 S.Ct. 3088.
Phase V involved a battle of wills between the federal judiciary and the Pennsylvania legislature. The legislature enacted a law prohibiting the expenditure of state funds for implementation of the emissions program. See id. at 551, 106 S.Ct. 3088. PennDOT therefore ceased all emissions-program activities after publishing final regulations for garage owners to conduct emissions inspections. Pennsylvania then sought to stay implementation of the decree, and Delaware Valley sought a finding of contempt and sanctions. The district court held Pennsylvania in contempt, denied a stay, and limited the Commonwealth's access to federal funds by ordering the United States Secretary of Transportation to cease approval of highway projects and grants in the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas unless they met certain criteria. The Commonwealth's appeal of this order was denied.
In Phase VI the City of Pittsburgh and several legislators attempted to intervene in the litigation. See id. at 552, 106 S.Ct. 3088. Delaware Valley successfully resisted these attempts. In Phase VII the district court reviewed seven projects that the United States Secretary of Transportation had funded and found that only two were allowable under the court's prior order. In Phase VIII the Pennsylvania legislature finally passed the legislation required to implement the emissions program and negotiated with Delaware Valley for a new implementation schedule, which the court approved. In Phase IX Delaware Valley successfully opposed Pennsylvania's efforts before the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the size of the area in which the emissions plan was to be implemented.
Delaware Valley then sought attorney fees it had incurred since the consent decree had been entered. Much of the work for which it sought compensation involved post-degree litigation, but it also involved work in Phases II and IX before state and federal administrative agencies. The district court awarded fees for that work, and the Third Circuit affirmed.
Pennsylvania argued before the Supreme Court that the language of the attorney-fee provision of the Clean Air 1105 Act allowed recovery only for "costs of litigation," and that therefore Delaware Valley's *1105 administrative work
in Phases II and IX was not compensable. See id. at 557-58, 106 S.Ct. 3088. The Court disagreed, explaining that counsel's work in those phases, although not traditional legal work,
was as necessary to the attainment of adequate relief for their client as was all of their earlier work in the courtroom which secured Delaware Valley's initial success in obtaining the consent decree. This case did not involve a single tortious act by the Commonwealth that resulted in a discrete injury to Delaware Valley, nor was the harm alleged the kind that could be remedied by a mere award of damages or the entry of declaratory relief. Instead, Delaware Valley filed suit to force the Commonwealth to comply with its obligations under the Clean Air Act to develop and implement an emissions inspection and maintenance program covering 10 counties surrounding two major metropolitan areas. To this end, the consent decree provided detailed instructions as to how the

program was to be developed and the specific dates by which these tasks were to be accomplished.
Protection of the full scope of relief afforded by the consent decree was thus crucial to safeguard the interests asserted by Delaware Valley; and enforcement of the decree, whether in the courtroom before a judge, or in front of a regulatory agency with power to modify the substance of the program ordered by the court, involved the type of work which is properly compensable as a cost of litigation under § 304. In a case of this kind, measures necessary to enforce the remedy ordered by the District Court cannot be divorced from the matters upon which Delaware Valley prevailed in securing the consent decree.
Id. at 558-59, 106 S.Ct. 3088 (emphasis added). The Court therefore held that the post-degree monitoring work in each phase was compensable.
Although the case arose under the Clean Air Act, the Court stated that the Act's fee provision was intended to serve the same purpose as the fee provision in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 0907 to encourage private citizens to enforce rights created under federal law. The Court cited with approval several § 1988 cases that had awarded attorney fees for postjudgment monitoring of consent decrees, and stated that the fee provisions of the two statutes should be interpreted in the same manner. See id. at 559-60, 106 S.Ct. 3088.
B. Tenth Circuit Precedent
Without relying on Delaware Valley, we have likewise held that some post-degree monitoring activity by plaintiffs' counsel is compensable. In Duran v. Carruthers, 885 F.2d 1492 (10th Cir.1989), the plaintiff class, inmates in a New Mexico penitentiary, had brought suit against state officials alleging violations of their civil rights. In 1980 the parties entered into a comprehensive consent decree that set out detailed rules and regulations governing the operation of the prison. See id. Among other things the decree established an internal monitoring body. But the compliance monitor filed two reports highly critical of the defendants and was fired. The district court then appointed a special master to monitor the defendants' compliance. See id. at 1495.
The plaintiffs also monitored compliance and several times sought contempt citations. In addition, they opposed several efforts by the defendants to modify the decree. See id. at 1493. Although the consent decree remained in effect, many of the post-degree disagreements between the plaintiffs and the defendants were settled by mutual agreement. See id.
1106 *1106 The plaintiffs sought attorney fees for their post-degree work. In awarding attorney fees, the district court held that the plaintiffs' "post-judgment services necessary to reasonable monitoring of the consent decree were compensable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988." Id. The defendants challenged the fee award, arguing that because they conducted their own monitoring and a Special Master had been appointed to ensure compliance, the plaintiffs' monitoring was "essentially gratuitous, self-initiated and redundant, as well as being unnecessary, duplicative, and superfluous." Id. at 1495 (internal quotation marks omitted). Rejecting that argument, we stated that to hold that plaintiffs' monitoring work was unnecessary "would mean that the plaintiffs must accept reports of the Special Master and the defendants' own compliance officer at face value and they would be unable to make any real challenge . . . to such reports." Id. We noted that plaintiffs' attorneys were charged with continuing duties under the decree; in particular, they had the right to challenge in court any declaration of an emergency or any implementation of the decree. See id. "In short, the 1980 consent decree was only the beginning, and counsel for the plaintiffs has a continuing duty and responsibility to make sure that the defendants comply, and continue to comply, with the decree." Id. See also Diaz v. Romer, 961 F.2d 1508, 1511 (10th Cir.1992) (subclass that was "part of the prisoner class that prevailed in the original litigation, which spawned subsequent stipulations and consent orders[,] . . . did not lose their prevailing-party status when they were named a subclass.")
The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs had not prevailed on a motion to hold them in contempt because the plaintiffs had withdrawn it under an agreement with the defendants, and thus should not get fees related to the motion. But we noted that this agreement also required the defendants to withdraw their request to the court to modify the decree. Citing Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980), we said that plaintiffs were a prevailing party because "§ 1988 contemplates that there will be an award of attorneys' fees and

costs if the plaintiff vindicates his or her rights through settlement." Id. at 1496. We affirmed the district court's award of attorney fees.
We also recognized a party's ongoing prevailing-party status in the post-degree phase in Joseph A. v. New Mexico Department of Human Services, 28 F.3d 1056 (10th Cir.1994). The plaintiffs, foster children in New Mexico, had entered into a consent decree with the New Mexico Department of Human Services. The decree specifically authorized attorney fees for decree-monitoring work. See id. at 1058. The defendants appealed an award on the ground that it included compensation for a failed attempt to obtain a contempt order. See id. at 1059. We stated that although the degree of success was a consideration in the overall analysis of what fees to award, lack of success during the monitoring phase did not deprive them of prevailing-party status. We said: "[T]he fact that plaintiffs ultimately did not prevail in their efforts to secure a contempt order d[id] not divest them of their status as prevailing parties so long as the work done was necessary to the overall effort." Id. at 1060. We noted that "it may be that the litigation of the contempt motion resulted in auxiliary or overall benefits to plaintiffs." Id. at 1061.
But more than prevailing-party status was necessary to sanction the award. Fees could be awarded only if "the effort expended was necessary and the fees requested . . . reasonable." Id. at 1060. Because "[f]ees are 1107 compensable only for *1107 work that is useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to secure the final result obtained," id. (internal quotation marks omitted), on remand the district court was to determine whether the defendants had in fact been failing to comply with the consent decree and whether the plaintiffs' failed motion for contempt had been "a necessary response," id. at 1061.
C. Buckhannon
In the City's view, however, Duran, Joseph A., and perhaps even Delaware Valley, have been overruled, or at least limited, by Buckhannon, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855. The issue before the Supreme Court in Buckhannon was the meaning of prevailing party. Buckhannon had brought suit against the State of West Virginia, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that a statute requiring that residents of boarding homes be capable of "self-preservation" violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. Id. at 600-01, 121 S.Ct. 1835 (internal quotation marks omitted). Within a year of the suit's being filed, the West Virginia legislature eliminated the requirement, and the district court dismissed the case as moot. See id. at 601, 121 S.Ct. 1835. Buckhannon then requested attorney fees, arguing that it was a prevailing party because its lawsuit had been the impetus for the legislature's voluntary enactment of the statutory change. See id. (The view that attorney fees are compensable in such circumstances has been called the "catalyst theory" of fee shifting.) The district court denied attorney fees, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. See id. at 602, 121 S.Ct. 1835. The Supreme Court agreed. It stated, "A defendant's voluntary change in conduct, although perhaps accomplishing what the plaintiff sought to achieve by the lawsuit, lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur" to make a party prevailing. Id. at 605, 121 S.Ct. 1835. Because there was no "judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties," id., Buckhannon had not been a prevailing party.
To support its view that Buckhannon precludes the claim for attorney fees in this case, the City points to Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 356 F.3d 767 (7th Cir.2004). In 1981 the Alliance plaintiffs had obtained a consent decree that restricted the city's authority to investigate alleged subversive activities. The decree did not grant the plaintiffs or their lawyers any monitoring or other responsibilities. See id. at 768. Nonetheless, over a period of seven years plaintiffs had brought two failed contempt proceedings and a failed opposition to the city's request to modify the decree, and had engaged in "efforts, which also bore no fruit so far as anyone can say, to monitor the city's compliance with the decree no 0907 fruit, that is, except the failed contempt proceedings." Id. at 769. Despite this lack of success the district court had awarded plaintiffs $1 million in attorney fees for these monitoring activities. The defendants appealed the award, and the court of appeals reversed.
The plaintiffs had argued that they were entitled to attorney fees because the consent decree made them prevailing parties for the entire life of the decree, which contained no end date. They also argued that they were "duty-bound to oppose the modification of the decree, to monitor compliance with the decree before and after it was modified, and to bring contempt proceedings against anyone who they thought might be violating it." Id. The court disagreed. The plaintiffs had relied on Delaware Valley to support their fee claim, but the court distinguished

it because "those postjudgment proceedings were at least partly successful," while "[t]hese plaintiffs' postjudgment proceedings were not." Id.
1108 *1108 Recognizing that other courts had awarded fees to plaintiffs who obtained no post-degree relief, Alliance distinguished some on the ground that the consent decree had specifically authorized attorney fees for plaintiffs' post-degree efforts and even then the plaintiffs' efforts had at least contributed to inducing compliance with the decree. The remaining cases awarding fees are best explained, said the court, as adopting the view that careful monitoring would deter violations of the decree. But "the rationale is attenuated in a case such as this in which someone else 0907 not the plaintiff 0907 is the appointed monitor." Id. at 771. And, more importantly, that rationale is "inconsistent with the Supreme Court's rejection in Buckhannon of the `catalyst' theory of fee-shifting." Id. The plaintiffs' failure to secure a successful outcome in the postjudgment phase made their efforts noncompensable. See id.
Alliance acknowledged the view of some courts that compensation might be appropriate if the failed effort was considered an offshoot of a successful pending case. But it rejected that view and, in any event, thought it inapplicable on the facts before it. "[T]he postjudgment proceedings here, coming as they did so many years after the consent decree went into effect, are clearly separable from the proceeding that led up to the entry of the decree." Id. "We do not think that our plaintiffs would argue that if a member of the class went to a lawyer who does not represent the class, and that lawyer filed a motion for contempt on behalf of his client and lost, the lawyer would be entitled to a fee, on the ground that the class member was a prevailing party by virtue of the consent decree." Id. at 772.
Finally, the court rejected the notion that the plaintiffs' attorneys had an ethical duty to oppose modification of and monitor the decree. Neither the original nor the modified decree imposed any duties on them. "They could have walked away from the case as soon as the consent decree was approved confident that a compliance machinery in which they had been given no role had been established. They would not have been letting down the class had they done so." Id. Although the court recognized that other courts, including this court in Duran, had awarded fees to plaintiffs despite the existence of a separate entity to monitor defendants' compliance with a consent decree, it stated that those cases "do not survive Buckhannon." Id.
D. Analysis
We are not persuaded by Alliance, at least as that opinion is interpreted by the City. It cannot be disputed that Plaintiffs have been prevailing parties in this litigation. The Supreme Court has held that a party that obtains a consent decree is a prevailing party. See Maher, 448 U.S. at 129, 100 S.Ct. 2570. Buckhannon does not cast doubt on that proposition. Moreover, Buckhannon does not purport to overturn, or even limit, Delaware Valley; the Buckhannon opinion does not even mention Delaware Valley. In light of Delaware Valley and this circuit's precedents, we cannot accept the proposition that attorney fees for post-degree efforts are compensable only if they result in a judicially sanctioned change in the parties' legal relationship. The Decree itself was such a change, and attorney fees incurred for reasonable efforts to enforce that change 0907 that is, protect the fruits of the Decree0907are compensable.
On the other hand, we also depart from the Plaintiffs' view. Their view is an overbroad characterization of what constitutes protecting the fruits of the decree. A lawyer's work should not be characterized as protecting the fruits 1109 of a decree *1109 just because it is directed at the same problem that the decree was directed at. When a decree establishes a particular mechanism for addressing the problem that motivated the initial lawsuit, the "fruit of the decree" is a properly functioning mechanism, not the elimination of the problem addressed by the mechanism. For example, the decree in Delaware Valley required implementation of an automobile-inspection program. So long as the program is functioning properly, the plaintiffs are enjoying the "fruits" of the decree. There may be owners who fail to bring their vehicles in for inspection. But attorney efforts to identify and pursue those persons should not be compensable as long as the Commonwealth's program is performing this task 0907 say, by refusing to renew a vehicle's registration unless the vehicle has an inspection certificate. In other words, the role of the plaintiffs' attorney in protecting the fruits of victory is to ensure that the decree is being honored, not to ensure that the problems motivating the decree have been eliminated.

This was certainly the circumstance in Delaware Valley. The actions of counsel through each phase of that case were directed at establishing and continuing the vehicle-monitoring program, as required by the decree. The Supreme Court declared that "measures necessary to enforce the remedy ordered by the District Court cannot be divorced from the matters upon which Delaware Valley prevailed in securing the consent decree." Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 559, 106 S.Ct. 3088. In Duran and Joseph A. the particular efforts by the plaintiffs' attorneys are unclear, but we characterized them as monitoring performance of the decree.[6]
Of course, the decree itself can spell out what efforts by plaintiffs' counsel are to be compensated. Indeed, the amount of litigation on the subject suggests that explicit provisions in consent decrees would be a boon for all concerned (certainly the courts). But when, as here, the matter was not resolved in the decree itself, we must apply the above general principles, as informed by reasonable inferences from the decree's provisions.
Resolving the matter in this case is not an easy task. As we proceed to explain, we do not think that resolution is possible on the record before us, so we must reverse and remand for further proceedings. The difficulty in characterizing the efforts of Plaintiffs' counsel arises from the Decree's inclusion of some provisions that set standards and other provisions that establish enforcement mechanisms. The standards include § 5, which requires that specialty assignments "be made on the basis of merit and fitness"; § 6, which requires hiring "on the basis of merit and fitness"; § 7, which requires that promotions likewise be based on merit and fitness; and § 13, 1110 which forbids retaliation against anyone who raises "matters of *1110 public concern," including complaints of discrimination. The enforcement mechanisms include creation of the Dispute Resolution Committee in § 21, the creation of an Independent Auditor in § 26, and the reorganization of the Internal Affairs Section in § 11 to include an Investigations Squad and an Audit and Inspections Squad.
One could argue that a violation of any standard or enforcement provision constitutes a violation of the Decree, and that Plaintiffs' counsel should be reimbursed for all efforts to "enforce" the Decree by identifying and correcting such a violation. In our view, however, the Decree is best read as establishing enforcement mechanisms to prevent, detect, and remedy violations of the standards. The fruit of the Decree is the proper functioning of those mechanisms. As in any large bureaucracy, violations of the standards will occur; but if the enforcement mechanisms function properly to prevent, detect, and remedy violations, the Decree is serving its purpose.[7] After all, the standards are, in intent and essence, restatements of the requirements of antidiscrimination law upon which the original suit was based. To say, for example, that promotion should be based on merit and fitness is to say that promotion should not be on the basis of race, religion, etc. Thus, the standards are not the fruit of the Decree. The fruit is the establishment of the mechanisms to ensure compliance with antidiscrimination law; the purpose of the provisions setting standards is to set the goals for enforcement mechanisms and the criteria for measuring their performance. If those who have been treated improperly 0907 because, for example, they are the subject of retaliation or because promotion was not based on merit 0907 generally obtain relief from the mechanisms established by the Decree, then the mistreated persons have enjoyed the fruit of the decree.
One might argue that another fruit of the Decree is to provide free legal services during the life of the Decree to anyone who claims injury from a violation of a standard set out in the Decree. But we decline to infer that purpose of the Decree in the absence of explicit language, particularly when the Decree sets a modest upper limit on compensation of the Independent Auditor and its explicit provisions on attorney fees address only claims based on pre-Decree misconduct. Although we reject the Seventh Circuit's suggestion in Alliance that the strictures of Buckhannon govern all post-degree efforts by the attorneys who obtained the decree, see Alliance, 356 F.3d at 771, we share that court's reluctance to treat a class-action decree as a "gravy train" that provides attorneys a "guaranteed lifetime income," id. at 773.
To consider the matter from a somewhat different perspective, it is worth noting the special status of class counsel and the limits on that status. Ordinarily, all matters relating to the class action must be handled by class counsel. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g); McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163 (10th Cir.1991). The class action can be unmanageable if the class cannot speak with one voice. On the other hand, one who is an intended beneficiary of a consent decree may pursue personal relief in an action to enforce the decree. Cf. Beckett v. Air Line Pilots 1111 Ass'n, 995 F.2d 280 (D.C.Cir.1993) (pilots who were nonparties could seek enforcement of class-action consent

*1111 decree to receive full payment of money due them). (We note that the Decree's provision for attorney fees arising from claims for pre-Decree discrimination does not appear to require such claims to be brought only by class counsel.) Applying these propositions to the case before us, only class counsel should be able to enforce the Decree's requirements regarding the proper functioning of the Decree's enforcement mechanisms. But an attorney retained by a particular officer could seek relief based on the TPD's post-Degree failure to, say, promote him based on merit and fitness. Such a personal attorney could have no claim for reimbursement of fees under the Decree. When class counsel is performing a task that can be performed only by class counsel 0907 namely, addressing systemic failure of the Decree's enforcement mechanisms 0907 compensation under the Decree may be appropriate. When, however, class counsel is performing a task that an officer's personal counsel could perform, class counsel should be no more entitled to fees under the Decree than would the personal attorney.
How, then, to characterize the efforts by Plaintiffs' counsel, who are class counsel? From what we can tell, much, or even most, of the efforts were to assist various clients in pursuing complaints within the mechanisms established or modified by the Decree. Utilizing the Decree's enforcement mechanisms is not in itself protecting the fruits of the Decree; rather, it is taking advantage (quite properly) of the Decree. On the other hand, if Plaintiffs' counsel can point to efforts designed to ensure that the Independent Auditor, the Dispute Resolution Committee, or the Internal Affairs Section is properly performing its duties, compensation for those efforts may be appropriate. Some efforts by Plaintiffs' counsel may involve elements of both utilizing the enforcement mechanisms and ensuring their proper functioning; in that event, apportionment of fees may be called for. We leave to the district court in the first instance to determine what part of those efforts were in fact monitoring the enforcement mechanisms to ensure against systemic failures. We note, however, that in assessing what compensation is due for monitoring efforts, the court must take into account that the Decree itself provides for neutral monitoring by the Independent Auditor; attorney efforts are compensable only if they are reasonable. Moreover, though counsel's efforts may be compensable despite the absence of a court order, the effort must still be effective 0907 for example, by convincing the City to comply without obtaining a court order. In particular, failed efforts could rarely justify attorney fees.
Finally, we observe that our approach is not inconsistent with the ethical obligations imposed on class counsel by our opinion in Duran, 885 F.2d at 1495. Plaintiffs contend that Duran required their attorneys to engage in the actions for which we would deny them compensation. They quote Duran for the proposition that "counsel for the plaintiffs has a continuing duty and responsibility to make sure that the defendants comply, and continue to comply, with the decree." 885 F.2d at 1495. But that declaration was founded on language in specific provisions of the consent decree in that case. In any event, our holding is not contrary to the quoted proposition. Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to compensation for reasonable efforts to preserve the fruits of the decree.[8]
1112 *1112 III. CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the district court's holding that Buckhannon precludes an award of attorney fees to Plaintiffs for the post-Degree efforts of their counsel, and REMAND for a determination of whether Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees for those efforts, and if so, the amount to be awarded. We GRANT Plaintiffs-Appellants' Unopposed Motion for Leave of Court to File Documents Under Seal.
O'BRIEN, J., concurring
I take our decision to preclude attorney fees for class counsel to the extent they are incurred in duplicating, or attempting to establish an alternative to, the Decree's enforcement mechanisms. For example, a claim of systemic failure brought by class counsel might be little more than a thinly disguised attempt to have the district court review a decision (even an erroneous one) rendered in accordance with the Decree's enforcement mechanisms. With that understanding, I join the opinion.
[1] The full text of the relevant provisions of § 5 is:
5.1 For the purposes of this Consent Decree, specialty assignments shall be defined as all assignments other than those that are bid under the current bid process, and the position of FOP president. All specialty assignments shall be made on the basis of merit and fitness.

5.2 The Department has adopted a process for making specialty assignments which provides for the posting in each division and upon the City's intranet all openings in specialty assignments. These postings are to include but are not limited to the specific assignment, the job description, minimum qualifications of that assignment and preferred qualifications. This process shall continue.
5.4. In each division, the Major shall be charged with accepting all applications for specialty assignments and for making recommendations to the Deputy Chief. The Deputy Chief shall forward the Major's recommendation to the Chief, with the Deputy Chief's own recommendation to approve or reject the Major's recommendation. All applicants shall be notified of the final decision.
5.5 A policy shall be adopted and implemented prohibiting those in the chain of command of positions being filled from directly or indirectly recruiting persons to apply for a specialty assignment other than through the announcement provided in Paragraph 5.2. Should no one who is qualified apply for an assignment during the period open for submitting applications, a period which shall be no less than three weeks, the chain of command or others may then take steps to secure qualified persons to serve in the open position, including actively recruiting qualified persons within the Department.
5.6 The established minimal requirements for all positions shall be reviewed by the Department to assure that those requirements directly relate to the requirements of the position.
5.7 With the following exception, the established minimum qualifications for positions shall not be waived. If no one who meets the minimum qualifications for an open specialty assignment applies for that assignment, the Department may open the position to all applicants and select the most qualified applicant for the position.
R. Vol. III at 331-33.
[2] The full text of the relevant parts of § 13 is:
13.1 The City shall adopt and implement a policy consistent with First Amendment law which forbids all forms of retaliation directed at any officer or civilian raising matters of public concern, including but not limited to, claims of racial, gender, religious, or national origin discrimination or other rights conferred by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the Constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma, or this Decree. The right to be free from retaliation shall include those who assert such matters on behalf of others. It shall not include protection for those who raise issues of personal interest. The policy shall further forbid any form of retaliation against any officer or civilian who participates in any fashion in assisting a person bringing a complaint alleging that their rights have been violated.
13.3 This policy shall define retaliation as being an action motivated by a desire to punish a person for the exercise of First Amendment rights which alters the terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to, giving unfair evaluations; initiating a disciplinary action; giving excessive punishment for a disciplinary infraction; failing to back or assist another officer; or giving unfavorable assignments.
R. Vol. III at 339-40.
[3] The full text of the relevant parts of § 11 is:
11.1 The City shall reorganize Internal Affairs into two squads. The current internal affairs function shall be assigned to a new Investigations Squad charged with conducting investigations of complaints. A second squad, the Audit and Inspections Squad, shall be charged with assuring that the Department is operating consistent with the Department's policies. It shall conduct such investigations and audits of the Department's data as necessary to meet this charge. The Audit and Investigations Squad shall be staffed by two sergeants, which shall be newly created positions.
11.3 The City shall adopt and implement policies and procedures to assure that all stages of the disciplinary process are free from racial and or gender discrimination, including:
a. the initiation of a disciplinary investigation;

b. the decision to bring disciplinary charges;
c. the resolution of a disciplinary action; and
d. the punishment given to an officer found to have violated a Department regulation/policy.
11.5 The initiation of a disciplinary action, a decision to bring disciplinary charges, or any other decision to discipline an employee of the Department is not sufficient, by itself, to evidence discrimination (including but not limited to racial or gender discrimination), without the presence of other indicia of such discrimination.
R. Vol. III at 336-37.
[4] The full text of § 22 reads:
22.1 The primary objective of the Committee shall be to collect and review information regarding compliance from the Independent Auditor and the City and then provide the Parties an opportunity to discuss issues concerning the requirements of this Decree, assist in resolution of issues relevant to this Decree, and assist the Parties in avoiding future litigation over these matters. The Committee shall have only the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by this Decree. The Committee is not authorized to make policy and shall not issue orders or directions to any Party or any agent, representative or employee of the City. This Committee shall assist the Parties in making the changes and resolving issues related to the policies and practices required by this Decree. When called upon to do so, the Committee shall address disputes over compliance acting as an alternative dispute resolution tool pursuant to the local rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Committee members shall be required to participate in proceedings of the Committee in good faith, openly discussing issues and seeking ways in which any differences can be resolved. All processes of the Committee shall be non-binding and not based upon voting majorities.
R. Vol. III at 346-47.
[5] The relevant parts of § 26 are:
26. INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
26.1 Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Decree, the City and the Plaintiffs' class shall select an Independent Auditor for appointment by the Court, with any disputes as to selection to be referred to Settlement Judge Eagan for attempted resolution. The City shall bear the cost of the Independent Auditor which shall not exceed $36,000 per annum, which may be increased only by a showing to the Court of clear and convincing evidence that failure to increase the per annum cost would impede the achievement of the objectives of this Decree and would not violate the Oklahoma Municipal Budget Act. . . .
26.2 The Independent Auditor shall have senior management experience and such other experience as the Court finds appropriate, but may not be a present or former employee or family member of the City.
26.3 Once appointed, the Independent Auditor shall be deemed an officer of the Court. The Independent Auditor is not a state or local agency, or an agent thereof. The Independent Auditor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Independent Auditor's responsibilities under this Decree, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant's or claimant's attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the City or the FOP, or their officers, agents or employees, or on behalf of the City or the FOP, or their officers, agents or employees.
26.4 The Independent Auditor shall not issue statements or make findings with regard to any act or omission of the City or its agents, representatives or employees except as required by the terms of this Decree, during a proceeding in this case or as might otherwise be required by the Court. The Independent Auditor may testify in an action brought by one of the Parties to enforce this Decree regarding any matter relating to the implementation, enforcement or dissolution of the Decree. The Independent Auditor shall not testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the City or any of its agents, representatives or employees

related to this Decree or regarding any matter or subject that the Independent Auditor may have received knowledge of as a result of his or her role under this Decree.
26.5 The Independent Auditor shall perform a review of the City's compliance with the terms of this Decree and shall report to the Committee three (3) times a year as to the City's compliance. The City shall provide the Independent Auditor with access to the data collected pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 3 of this Decree, and any existing completed analysis thereof. In addition, the Independent Auditor shall have access to City staff responsible for creating or compiling this data. . . . The Independent Auditor shall have access . . . to the reason for rejection of applicants to the Academy in order to determine compliance with this Decree. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Decree, counsel for Plaintiffs shall not have access to such reason. Any dispute over requests for additional information shall be referred to the Committee for resolution. If the Committee is unable to resolve any such dispute, the Independent Auditor may request the Court grant appropriate access to the requested documents, data, or staff.
26.6 The Independent Auditor's role is limited to compliance with this Decree; the Independent Auditor is not a substitute for Internal Affairs or criminal investigations.
R. Vol. III at 348-50.
[6] Certain statements in Duran and Joseph A. might be read to support the "catalyst theory," and we recognize that such a reading is no longer defensible in light of Buckhannon. In our view, however, Duran and Joseph A. are more properly read to have predicated post-degree attorney fees on the necessity of the actions to preserve the plaintiffs' prior success in achieving a consent decree, and in this respect these opinions survive Buckhannon. See Duran, 885 F.2d at 1496. ("[T]he entry of the Court's judgment has not terminated the role of the plaintiffs' counsel. . . . Without determined, competent and dedicated representation, the provisions of this Consent Decree might have had little practical significance for the class members." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Joseph A., 28 F.3d at 1059 ("While the degree of success plays a part in the overall analysis [of postdecree attorney fees], we think a more important inquiry is whether the work done was necessary to achieve the final result.").
[7] "Proper" functioning does not mean "perfect" functioning. No system works perfectly. Mistakes are inevitable and, inevitably, some individual cases of mistreatment will not be adequately redressed. Occasional errors do not necessarily establish systemic failure or deprive the class of the fruits of the decree.
[8] There is considerable uncertainty regarding the ethical duties of class counsel. See Nancy J. Moore, Ethics Matters, Too: The Significance of Professional Regulation of Attorney Fees and Costs in Mass Tort Litigation 0907 A Response to Judith Resnick, 148 U. Pa. L.Rev. 2209, 2221 (2000); Nancy J. Moore, Who Should Regulate Class Action Lawyers?, 744 PLI/Lit 701, 704-05, PLI Order No. 8588 (July 2006) (noting that neither the Model Code of Professional Responsibility nor the Model Rules of Professional Conduct specifically addresses the ethical obligations of class-action lawyers).
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.