CLOSED,DISC,MEDIATION,PROTO
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF KANSAS (Kansas City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:17−cv−02320−JAR−JPO

Huff et al v. CoreCivic, Inc. et al Assigned to: Chief District Judge Julie A Robinson Referred to: Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara Cause: 18: 2511 Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral or Electronic Communications
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/01/2017 Date Terminated: 01/28/2020 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Ashley Huff individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Brian C. McCart Law Offices of Brian Timothy Meyers 1044 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64105 816−842−0006 Fax: 816−842−6623 Email: bmccart@btm−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Timothy Meyers The Law Offices of Brian Timothy Meyers 1044 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64105 816−842−0006 Fax: 816−842−6623 Email: btmeyers@btm−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A. Kronawitter Horn, Aylward & Bandy LLC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 816−421−0700 Fax: 816−421−0899 Email: jkronawitter@hab−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert A. Horn Horn, Aylward & Bandy LLC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 816−421−0700 Fax: 816−421−0899 Email: rhorn@hab−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Gregory L. Rapp individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Brian C. McCart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Timothy Meyers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
CoreCivic, Inc. formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America

Joseph A. Kronawitter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert A. Horn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy D. Fitts Polsinelli PC − 48th Street 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112−1895 816−218−1255 Email: afitts@polsinelli.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren E. Tucker McCubbin Polsinelli PC − 48th Street 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112−1895 816−753−1000 Fax: 816−753−1536 Email: ltucker@polsinelli.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P. Cutler Polsinelli PC − 48th Street Missouri 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112−1895 816−691−3769 Fax: 816−753−1536 Email: mcutler@polsinelli.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas G. Kokoruda Polsinelli PC − 48th Street 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112−1895 816−374−0513 Fax: 816−753−1536 Email: tkokoruda@polsinelli.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hal D. Meltzer Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC − OP 51 Corporate Woods 9393 W. 110th Street, Suite 500 Overland Park, KS 66210 816−471−2121 Fax: 816−472−0288 Email: meltzer@bscr−law.com TERMINATED: 01/25/2019

Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc.
Movant

represented by Joshua P. Martin Securus Technologies, Inc. 4000 International Parkway Carrolton, TX 75007 972−277−0335 Fax: 972−277−0699 Email: joshuamartin@securustechnologies.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Ryan Harding Husch Blackwell LLP−Jefferson City 235 East High Street PO Box 1251 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573−635−9118 Fax: 573−634−7854 Email: ryan.harding@huschblackwell.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Taylor Brooke Concannon Hausmann Husch Blackwell LLP − 4801 Main 4801 Main Street, Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 816−983−8000 Fax: 816−983−8080 Email: taylor.concannonhausmann@huschblackwell.com TERMINATED: 09/10/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Tessa K. Jacob Husch Blackwell LLP − 4801 Main 4801 Main Street, Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 816−983−8233 Fax: 816−983−8080 Email: tessa.jacob@huschblackwell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alyssa Mayer Missouri Attorney General's Office 615 East 13th Street, Suite 401 Kansas City, MO 64106 816−889−5023 Email: alyssammayer@outlook.com TERMINATED: 09/24/2019
Michael R. Owens Edgar Law Firm, LLC − KC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 440 Kansas City, MO 64108 816−531−0033 Fax: 816−531−3322 Email: mro@edgarlawfirm.com TERMINATED: 04/01/2019
represented by

Tywan A. Poole TERMINATED: 02/23/2018
Movant Montgomery Carl Akers
Movant Tyreece Gray Movant Juan C. Alvarez

Tywan A. Poole 25194−045 FORREST CITY − FCI − LOW PO Box 9000 Forrest City, AR 72336 PRO SE
represented by Montgomery Carl Akers 02866−081 MARION − USP U.S. Penitentiary Inmate Mail/Parcels PO Box 1000 Marion, IL 62959 PRO SE
represented by Tyreece Gray PRO SE
represented by Juan C. Alvarez 24852031 MARION − USP PO Box 1000 Marion, IL 62959 PRO SE

Date Filed 06/01/2017
06/01/2017 06/01/2017
06/02/2017 06/06/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 07/05/2017 07/05/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with trial location of Kansas City ( Filing fee $400, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC−4186726.), filed by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
NOTICE OF JUDGE ASSIGNMENT: Case assigned to Chief District Judge Julie A Robinson and Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara for all proceedings. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (cv) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
3 DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL filed by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp − trial to be held in Kansas City. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to CoreCivic, Inc., Securus Technologies, Inc. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry) (cv) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
4 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED −− Personal Service by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp upon CoreCivic, Inc. served on 6/15/2017, answer due 7/6/2017 (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
5 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED −− Personal Service by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp upon Securus Technologies, Inc. served on 6/15/2017, answer due 7/6/2017 (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
6 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Taylor Brooke Concannon on behalf of Securus Technologies, Inc.. (Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
7 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Securus Technologies, Inc. . (Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/05/2017 07/06/2017 07/10/2017
08/03/2017 08/08/2017 09/05/2017
09/08/2017 09/08/2017
09/08/2017 09/11/2017 09/25/2017 09/26/2017 09/26/2017 09/27/2017
09/27/2017 09/27/2017

8 Securus's ANSWER to Complaint by Securus Technologies, Inc..(Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
9 Separate ANSWER to Complaint of CoreCivic, Inc. f/k/a Corrections Corporation of America by CoreCivic, Inc..(Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
10 INITIAL ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Scheduling Conference set for 9/18/2017 at 9:00 AM in KC Courtroom 223 (JPO) before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. Report of Parties Planning Meeting deadline 9/8/2017. Rule 26 Initial Disclosures Deadline set for 9/8/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 7/10/17. (ss) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
11 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by CoreCivic, Inc. identifying None as corporate parent . (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
12 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Tessa K. Jacob on behalf of Securus Technologies, Inc. (Jacob, Tessa) (Entered: 08/08/2017)
13 NOTICE of Hearing CHANGE: THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) By agreement of the parties, the Scheduling Conference is set for 9/26/2017 at 2:00 PM in KC Courtroom 223 (JPO) before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. The planning report will remain due on 9/8/17.(ss) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
14 MOTION for attorney Robert Ryan Harding to appear pro hac vice ( Pro hac vice fee $50, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC−4270751.) by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Attachments: # 1 ECF Registration Form, # 2 Affidavit)(Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
15 ORDER granting 14 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Robert Ryan Harding for Securus Technologies, Inc. pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 for purposes of this case only. Unless already registered, pro hac vice counsel should register for electronic notification pursuant to the court's Administrative Procedures by completing a CM/ECF Electronic Filing Registration Form at http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 9/8/17. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (hw) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Initial Disclosures by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
17 NOTICE OF SERVICE by CoreCivic, Inc. Initial Disclosures (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
18 Joint MOTION for Order JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PROTOCOL by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A)(Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
19 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PROTOCOL and ORDER granting 18 joint motion for entry of order governing document production between plaintiffs and defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 9/26/2017. (amh) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Initial Rule 26 Disclosures by Securus Technologies, Inc. (Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
21 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 9/27/2017. Joseph Kronawitter, Robert Horn, and Brian McCart appear for plaintiff. Hal Meltzer appears for CoreCivic. Tessa Jacob and Taylor Concannon appear for Securus Technologies. (FTR: 2:03.) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (ss) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
22 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery deadline re class certification 8/3/2018. Dispositive motion deadline 10/13/2017. See order for further deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 9/27/17. (ss) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
23 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Robert A. Horn on behalf of Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Horn, Robert) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

10/02/2017 10/02/2017 10/03/2017 10/04/2017 10/06/2017 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/16/2017
10/16/2017
10/16/2017 10/17/2017
10/18/2017

24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Rule 26 Disclosures Documents by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Certificate of Service by Securus Technologies, Inc. (Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Documents Identified in Initial Disclosures by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
27 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Brian Christopher McCart on behalf of All Plaintiffs (McCart, Brian) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
28 Joint NOTICE of Adoption of Document Production Protocol by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
29 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
30 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 29 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
31 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. (Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
32 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 31 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc.(Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
33 Joint MOTION for Discovery JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROPOSED FED. R. EVID. 502(d) ORDER by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
34 Joint MOTION for Protective Order JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
35 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp re 33 Joint MOTION for Discovery JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROPOSED FED. R. EVID. 502(d) ORDER (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
36 ORDER regarding 33 motion for entry of a Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) order. The court requests supplemental briefing. By October 20, 2017, the parties are directed to file a joint brief, limited to five double−spaced pages, more fully explaining their respective positions as to why, or why not, this case should be distinguished from Rajala v. McGuire Woods, LLP, No. 08−2638, in which U.S. Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse entered a Rule 502(d) order over the plaintiff's objections. See 2010 WL 2949582 (D. Kan. July 22, 2010) and 2013 WL 50200 (D. Kan. Jan. 3, 2013). Defendants shall not file a separate reply in support of the motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 10/17/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (amh) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
37 TRANSCRIPT of Initial Scheduling Conference held September 26, 2017 before Judge James P. O'Hara, Court Reporter Kim Greiner, 913−735−2314, kim_greiner@ksd.uscourts.gov. Transcript purchased by: Horn, Aylward & Bandy.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.ksd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After

10/20/2017 10/23/2017
10/23/2017 11/01/2017 11/02/2017 11/02/2017
11/03/2017
11/13/2017 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 11/17/2017 11/20/2017

that date it may be obtained through PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/16/2018. (kg) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
38 Proposed MOTION for Order Proposed Stipulate Motion for Entry of Proposed Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) Order by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
39 STIPULATED FED. R. EVID. 502(d) ORDER and ORDER granting 38 stipulated motion for entry of proposed Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) order. The court has received the parties' proposed stipulated Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) order, referenced as Exhibit A (but unattached) to the parties' stipulated motion (ECF No. 38), and finds good cause to enter the proposed order. Defendants' joint motion for entry of proposed Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) order 33 is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 10/23/2017. (srj) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
40 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER and ORDER granting 34 joint motion for protective order. The court finds good cause to enter the order submitted by the parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 10/23/2017. (srj) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
41 STATUS REPORT −− Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
42 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 29 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 31 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 42 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 29 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 31 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) . The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(ss) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
43 ORDER granting 42 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs move for an extension of time to respond to Defendants' motions to dismiss. For good cause, the Court grants the motion and extends Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to Defendants' motions through November 13, 2017. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A Robinson on 11/3/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (gt) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
44 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp re 31 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
45 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp re 29 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
46 MOTION TO JOIN by Movant Tywan A. Poole. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Envelope)(kao) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
47 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. re: 29 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
48 ORDER denying 46 motion to join case. The motion and its attachments appear to be based on Mr. Poole's mistaken belief that this case has been certified as a class action. To the contrary, the court has set August 31, 2018, as the deadline for plaintiffs to move for class certification. If the case is eventually certified as a class action, Mr. Poole may have an opportunity to join the class at that time. To the extent Mr. Poole is seeking leave to intervene in this case before that time, he must follow the direction of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 11/20/2017. Mailed to pro se party by regular mail. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (amh) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/21/2017 12/01/2017 12/01/2017 12/04/2017
12/04/2017 12/13/2017 12/14/2017
12/20/2017 12/20/2017
01/02/2018 01/08/2018 01/10/2018 01/23/2018 02/01/2018 02/01/2018 02/02/2018

49 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests to Defendants by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
50 MOTION to Amend/Correct for Leave to Amend Answer by Interlineation and Memorandum in Support by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
51 STATUS REPORT −Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
52 ORDER granting 50 motion for leave to amend answer by interlineation. Counsel has informed the court the motion is unopposed. Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. is directed to file forthwith its amended answer as a separate docket entry. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 12/4/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (srj) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
53 AMENDED ANSWER to Plaintiffs' Complaint by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
54 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
55 ORDER granting 54 unopposed motion for extension of time until January 18, 2018, for defendant CoreCivic to respond to discovery. For counsel's future reference, the court notes that both Fed. R. Civ. P. 29 and the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 22 at 12) permit the parties to stipulate to extensions of this type without court involvement. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 12/14/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (amh) (Entered: 12/14/2017)
56 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 49 Certificate of Service of Discovery by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
57 ORDER granting 56 unopposed motion for extension of time until January 8, 2018, for defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. to respond to plaintiff's first requests for production of documents and first set of interrogatories. For counsel's future reference, the court notes that both Fed. R. Civ. P. 29 and the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 22 at 12) permit the parties to stipulate to extensions of this type without court involvement (counsel were directed to make efficient use of Rule 29 stipulations during the scheduling conference on September 27, 2017, and reminded again in an order filed just six days ago −− the continued filing of motions for extensions when stipulations suffice unnecessarily runs up legal expense and wastes court resources). Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 12/20/2017. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (srj) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
58 STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 01/02/2018)
59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Securus Technologies, Inc. re 49 Certificate of Service (Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
60 NOTICE OF SERVICE by CoreCivic, Inc. of Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production to CoreCivic, Inc. (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
61 MOTION to Intervene (Titled "Motion Seeking Leave to Intervene as a Party of Interest") by Movant Tywan A. Poole (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara). (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(tvn) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
62 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of First Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs' First Requests for Production of Documents by Securus Technologies, Inc. (Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
63 STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
64 NOTICE OF SERVICE by CoreCivic, Inc. of First Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, First Request for Production to Plaintiffs, First Requests for Admission to Plaintiffs

02/06/2018 02/08/2018 02/20/2018
02/23/2018 02/23/2018 02/28/2018 03/01/2018 03/01/2018 03/01/2018 03/02/2018
03/05/2018
03/14/2018 04/02/2018 05/01/2018 05/02/2018
05/03/2018

(Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
65 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. re 61 MOTION to Intervene (Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 02/06/2018)
66 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. re 61 MOTION to Intervene (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
67 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION (Titled "Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants CoreCivic and Securus Tech. Motion Opposing Intervention") by Movant Tywan A. Poole re: 61 MOTION to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(tvn) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
68 ORDER denying 61 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 02/23/2018. Mailed to pro se party Tywan A. Poole by certified mail; Certified Tracking Number: 7014 3490 0002 1092 2194. (tvn) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
69 SUPPLEMENT to 67 Reply to Response to Motion (Titled "Addendum Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Deny Motion to Intervene.") by Movant Tywan A. Poole. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(tvn) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
70 Unopposed MOTION to Compel Production of Documents by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
71 ORDER granting 70 Unopposed Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 3/1/2018. (srj) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
72 MOTION for extension of time by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
73 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
74 ORDER granting 72 motion for extension of expert−discovery deadlines. Defendants have indicated they do not oppose the motion. The new deadlines are as follows: April 13, 2018, for plaintiffs' expert disclosures; June 15, 2018, for defendants' expert disclosures; July13, 2018, for plaintiffs' rebuttal expert disclosures. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 3/2/2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (amh) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
75 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 29 Motion to Dismiss Count I of Complaint, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment; Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant Securus Technologies' 31 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's motion is granted as it relates to Plaintiffs' Count I claim, denied as it relates to Plaintiffs' Counts II and III wiretap interception claims, and granted as it relates to Plaintiffs' Counts II and III wiretap disclosure claims. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A Robinson on 3/2/18. (kao) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
76 CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT returned re 68 Order on Motion to Intervene addressed to Tywan A. Poole. (tvn) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
77 STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
78 STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
79 MOTION for attorney Joshua P. Martin to appear pro hac vice ( Pro hac vice fee $50, Internet Payment Receipt Number AKSDC−4470493.) by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Concannon, Taylor) (Entered: 05/02/2018)
80 ORDER granting 79 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Joshua P. Martin for Securus Technologies, Inc. pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.5.4 for purposes of this case only. Unless already registered, pro hac vice counsel should register for electronic notification pursuant to the court's Administrative Procedures by completing a

06/01/2018 06/07/2018 06/07/2018
06/12/2018 06/12/2018 06/14/2018 06/22/2018 06/22/2018 06/25/2018 07/03/2018 07/11/2018 08/01/2018 08/01/2018 08/02/2018
09/04/2018

CM/ECF Electronic Filing Registration Form at http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 05/03/2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (tvn) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
81 STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 06/01/2018)
82 Unopposed MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order and for Extension of Time by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
83 ORDER granting 82 unopposed motion for extension of time until August 1, 2018, for defendant CoreCivic to designate its expert witnesses regarding class certification. Although not addressed by the parties, extending this deadline forces the extension of other scheduling−order deadlines. The new deadline for rebuttal expert disclosures regarding class certification is August 20, 2018. The new deadline for the completion of discovery regarding class certification is also August 20, 2018. The deadlines for class−certification and Daubert motions, and their related briefings, remain unchanged. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 6/7/2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (amh) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
84 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to file /Depose Gregory Rapp by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
85 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Production of Documents by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
86 ORDER granting 84 unopposed motion for leave to depose Gregory Rapp. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 6/14/2018. (srj) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
87 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Thomas G. Kokoruda on behalf of CoreCivic, Inc. (Kokoruda, Thomas) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
88 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Lauren E. Tucker McCubbin on behalf of CoreCivic, Inc.. (Tucker McCubbin, Lauren) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
89 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Amy D. Fitts on behalf of CoreCivic, Inc. (Fitts, Amy) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
90 STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 07/03/2018)
91 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Supplemental Responses to First Request for Production by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
92 JOINT MOTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Tucker McCubbin, Lauren) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
93 JOINT STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
94 ORDER granting 92 joint motion to temporarily stay the case while the parties attempt to reach a settlement. The deadlines set in the scheduling order (ECF No. 22, as amended by ECF No. 83) are vacated. Should the parties fail to resolve the case by October 1, 2018, they are ordered to submit a jointly proposed amended scheduling order to the undersigned's chambers by that date. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 8/2/2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (amh) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
95 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE by attorney Taylor Concannon as to Securus Technologies, Inc. (Concannon, Taylor) ** This Notice of Withdrawal is not in compliance with Local Rule 83.5.5(b) and therefore this attorney will not be withdrawn. Counsel may file a Certificate of Service of this Notice upon his actual clients (not attorneys of record) in order to be withdrawn.** (Entered: 09/04/2018)

09/12/2018 09/24/2018 09/24/2018
10/19/2018 11/01/2018 11/05/2018 11/19/2018 11/27/2018 11/27/2018 11/29/2018 12/03/2018 12/19/2018 12/28/2018 12/31/2018
01/02/2019 01/10/2019 01/10/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019

96 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Withdrawal to Securus Technologies, Inc. by Securus Technologies, Inc. re 95 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance. (Jacob, Tessa) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
97 Joint MOTION to Stay Deadlines /Extend the Temporary Stay by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Tucker McCubbin, Lauren) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
98 ORDER granting 97 joint motion to extend the temporary stay while the parties continue settlement negotiations. As agreed by the parties, if they do not resolve the case by October 31, 2018, they must submit a jointly proposed amended scheduling order to the undersigned's chambers by that date. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 9/24/2018. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (amh) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
99 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Michael R. Owens on behalf of Securus Technologies, Inc. (Owens, Michael) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
100 STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 11/01/2018)
101 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery deadline 4/1/2019. See order for additional deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 11/5/2018. (ydm) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs' Discovery Request to Defendants by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 11/19/2018)
103 Unopposed MOTION for Order by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
104 ORDER granting 103 unopposed motion for production of documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 11/27/2018. (amh) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
105 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery Requests to Defendants by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
106 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
107 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of responses and objections to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents by Securus Technologies, Inc. (Owens, Michael) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
108 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Fitts, Amy) (Entered: 12/28/2018)
109 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories, Third Requests for Production of Documents, and Fourth Requests for Production of Documents by Securus Technologies, Inc. (Owens, Michael) (Entered: 12/31/2018)
110 STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
111 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Michael P. Cutler on behalf of CoreCivic, Inc. (Cutler, Michael) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
112 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' 3rd and 4th Requests for Production of Documents by CoreCivic, Inc. (Cutler, Michael) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
113 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Requests for Admission to CoreCivic, Inc. by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
114 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/18/2019
01/23/2019 01/23/2019
01/25/2019 02/01/2019 02/01/2019 02/01/2019 02/18/2019 02/20/2019 03/01/2019 03/04/2019 03/04/2019 03/04/2019 03/05/2019 03/05/2019 03/06/2019 03/06/2019 03/07/2019 03/13/2019

115 ORDER granting 114 unopposed motion for extension of time until February 18, 2019, for plaintiffs to file a motion to compel regarding Securus's discovery responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 1/18/2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (amh) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
116 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
117 ORDER granting 116 unopposed motion for extension of time until February 13, 2019, for plaintiffs to file a motion to compel regarding CoreCivic's discovery responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 1/23/2019. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (amh) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
118 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE by attorney Hal D. Meltzer as to CoreCivic, Inc. (Meltzer, Hal) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
119 STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
120 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant Securus' Amended Objections and Responses to Discovery Requests by Securus Technologies, Inc. (Jacob, Tessa) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
121 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Supplemental Answer to 2nd Set of Interrogatories by CoreCivic, Inc. (Cutler, Michael) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs 1st Request for Admissions by CoreCivic, Inc. (Cutler, Michael) (Entered: 02/18/2019)
123 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Second Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Disclosures by CoreCivic, Inc. (Cutler, Michael) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
124 STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
125 NOTICE by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. of taking deposition of Ashley Huff on March 20, 2019 (Fitts, Amy) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
126 NOTICE by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. of taking deposition of Richard W. Johnson on March 26, 2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Fitts, Amy) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
127 NOTICE by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. of taking deposition of William Session on March 27, 2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Fitts, Amy) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
128 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Alyssa Mayer on behalf of Securus Technologies, Inc. (Mayer, Alyssa) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
129 Unopposed MOTION For Leave to Take Deposition of Individual Confined in Prison by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Cutler, Michael) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
130 AMENDED NOTICE by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. of taking deposition of William Session on March 27, 2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Fitts, Amy) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
131 ORDER granting 129 Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Individual Confined in Prison. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 3/6/2019. (amh) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
132 NOTICE by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. of taking deposition of Gregory Rapp on March 28, 2019 (Fitts, Amy) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
133 Joint MOTION for extension of time of Discovery and Class Certification Deadlines by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Kokoruda, Thomas) (Entered: 03/13/2019)

03/14/2019
03/14/2019 04/01/2019 04/01/2019 05/01/2019 06/03/2019 08/23/2019 08/27/2019 09/03/2019 09/11/2019
09/13/2019 09/24/2019 09/26/2019
11/13/2019 11/18/2019 11/25/2019

134 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER granting 133 joint motion to extend discovery and class certification deadlines. All discovery completed re class certification deadline 8/1/2019. Class−certification and Daubert motion deadline 8/29/2019. Responses to class−certification and Daubert deadline 10/1/2019. Reply briefs re: class−certification and Daubert deadline 10/22/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 03/14/2019. (jc) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
135 NOTICE of Postponement of Depositions by CoreCivic, Inc. (Fitts, Amy) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
136 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE by attorney Michael R. Owens as to Securus Technologies, Inc. (Mayer, Alyssa) (Entered: 04/01/2019)
137 Joint STATUS REPORT by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 04/01/2019)
138 STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
139 STATUS REPORT Joint by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
140 Unopposed MOTION to Certify Class and Preliminarily Approve Class Action Settlement by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6)(Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
141 ADR REPORT by CoreCivic, Inc. ADR session held on: May 20, 2019 and conducted by Kirk J. Goza. Results of ADR: Case settled at ADR. Status of litigation at time of ADR: Partial Discovery(Fitts, Amy) (Entered: 08/27/2019)
142 NOTICE of Hearing: THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING Preliminary Settlement Approval set for 9/12/2019 at 09:00 AM in KC Courtroom 427 (JAR)before Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (bw) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
143 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing: THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING Due to a conflict with the Court's calendar, and in agreement with the parties, the Court resets Settlement Approval hearing for 9/13/2019 at 09:30 AM in KC Courtroom 427 (JAR)before Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (bw) (Entered: 09/11/2019)
144 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson: SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING held on 9/13/2019, Fairness Hearing set for January 28, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Kelli Stewart.) (bw) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
145 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE by attorney Alyssa M. Mayer as to Securus Technologies, Inc. (Mayer, Alyssa) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
146 ORDER granting 140 Unopposed MOTION to Certify Class and Preliminarily Approve Class Action Settlement. Final Approval Hearing set for 1/28/2020 at 09:00 AM in KC Courtroom 427 (JAR)before Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 9/26/2019. See order for additional details. (ydm) Modified on 9/26/2019 to edit text to show granted instead of regarding doc #140 per chambers (JAR). (ydm) (Entered: 09/26/2019)
147 MOTION for Joinder by Movant Tywan A. Poole. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ydm) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 147 MOTION for Joinder. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(amh) (Entered: 11/18/2019)
152 Letter from Juan M Lopez−Garcia. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ydm) (Entered: 12/11/2019)

11/26/2019 11/26/2019 11/26/2019 12/03/2019 12/10/2019 12/13/2019
12/13/2019 12/16/2019
12/17/2019 12/17/2019 12/23/2019 12/26/2019 12/26/2019
12/27/2019
12/30/2019 12/30/2019 12/31/2019

148 JOINT RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp re 147 MOTION for Joinder (Kronawitter, Joseph) Modified on 11/26/2019 (ses). (Entered: 11/26/2019)
149 MOTION for Join − Intervene Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 and 24 by Movant Montgomery Carl Akers (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(hw) (Entered: 11/26/2019)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 149 MOTION for Joinder. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge. (jc) (Entered: 11/26/2019)
150 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Response to Tywan Poole's Motion for Intervention/Joinder by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
151 RESPONSE by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. re 149 MOTION for Joinder Joint Response in Opposition to Carl Montgomery Akers' Motion to Intervene (Jacob, Tessa) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
153 MOTION FOR TRAVERSE REPLY TO JOINT RESPONSER IN OPPOSITION TO TYWAN POOLES CLASS ACTION JOINDER by Movant Tywan A. Poole. (Attachments: # 1 Ex A, # 2 Ex B, # 3 Ex C, # 4 Ex D, # 5 Ex E) (ydm) (Entered: 12/16/2019)
155 MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF CLASS ACTION STATUS by Movant Tyreece Gray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (ydm) (Modified on 12/17/2019 to correct title. (heo)) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
154 MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF CLASS ACTION STATUS by Movant Tywan A. Poole. (referred to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara) (Attachments: # 1 Ex A, # 2 Ex B, # 3 Ex C, # 4 Ex D) (ydm) (Modified on 12/17/2019 to correct title. (heo)) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/13/2020: # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Envelope) (hw). Modified on 1/13/2020. Exhibit E and the envelope were left on when originally docketed (hw). (Entered: 12/16/2019)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 153 MOTION for Order, 154 MOTION for Order. The motions will be resolved by the District Judge. (jc) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 155 MOTION for Order. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(amh) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
156 MOTION in Compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24(c) by Movant Montgomery Carl Akers. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ydm) (Entered: 12/26/2019)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 156 MOTION for Order. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(jc) (Entered: 12/26/2019)
157 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION (Titled: Response by Intervener to Joint Response in Opposition) by Movant Montgomery Carl Akers re: 149 MOTION for Join − Intervene Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 and 24. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ydm) (Entered: 12/27/2019)
158 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8)(Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 12/27/2019)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 158 MOTION for Attorney Fees . The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(ss) (Entered: 12/30/2019)
159 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp re 154 MOTION for Order Joint Response (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 12/30/2019)
160 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp re 155 MOTION for Order Joint Response (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 12/31/2019)

01/06/2020 01/08/2020 01/08/2020 01/10/2020 01/13/2020
01/13/2020 01/13/2020
01/14/2020
01/14/2020 01/14/2020 01/16/2020
01/16/2020 01/17/2020
01/17/2020 01/21/2020 01/23/2020 01/28/2020 01/28/2020

161 OBJECTION to Class Settlement by Albert Dewayne Banks. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(heo) (Entered: 01/07/2020)
162 OBJECTION(S) to Class Settlement by Anthony Thompson. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ydm) (Entered: 01/09/2020)
163 OBJECTION(S) to Class Settlement by Johnny Lee Ivory III. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ydm) (Entered: 01/09/2020)
165 OBJECTION to Class Settlement by Enoch Clark III. (ydm) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
164 DOCKET ANNOTATION: Exhibit E and the envelope re 154 MOTION for Order was left off when originally docketed. They have been added to the entry and is attached to this annotation for noticing purposes only. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (hw) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
166 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 156 MOTION for Order Joint Motion for Extension of Time by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. (Jacob, Tessa) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 166 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 156 MOTION for Order Joint Motion for Extension of Time. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(jc) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
167 ORDER granting 166 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 156 Motion in Compliance with Fed. R.Civ. P. 24(c). The response deadline is extended to 1/16/2020. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 1/14/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (lml) (Entered: 01/14/2020)
168 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (Kronawitter, Joseph). (Entered: 01/14/2020)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 168 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time . The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(ss) (Entered: 01/14/2020)
169 RESPONSE by Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. re 156 MOTION for Order Joint Response in Opposition to Montgomery Carl Akers' Proposed Motion in Compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24(c) (Jacob, Tessa) (Entered: 01/16/2020)
170 OBJECTION to Class Settlement by Reginald Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(smc) (Entered: 01/16/2020)
171 MOTION for Order Granting Final Approval To Class Settlement by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit A to Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit B to Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit C to Exhibit 2, # 7 Exhibit D to Exhibit 2)(Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
172 RESPONSE to 170 Objection(s) Plaintiffs' Response to All Objections by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 171 MOTION for Order Granting Final Approval To Class Settlement. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(amh) (Entered: 01/21/2020)
173 NOTICE OF SERVICE by Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp of CAFA Notices (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 01/23/2020)
174 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson: SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING held on 1/28/2020. (Court Reporter Kelli Stewart.) (bw) (Entered: 01/28/2020)
175 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 147 Motion for Joinder by Tywan A. Poole; denying 149 Motion for Joinder by Montgomery Carl Akers; denying 153 Motion for Traverse Reply to Joint Response by Tywan A. Poole; denying 154 Motion for Determination of Class Action Status by Tywan A. Poole; denying 155 Motion for

01/28/2020 01/28/2020
01/28/2020 02/06/2020 02/06/2020 02/20/2020 02/27/2020 02/27/2020 02/28/2020
03/27/2020 03/27/2020 03/27/2020
04/03/2020 04/14/2020 04/14/2020 04/14/2020

Determination of Class Action Status by Tyreece Gray; and denying 156 Motion in Compliance with Federal Rules and Civil Procedures by Montgomery Carl Akers. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 1/28/2020.Mailed to pro se party Tywan A. Poole, Montgomery Carl Akers, and Tyreece Gray by regular mail (bw) (Entered: 01/28/2020)
176 ORDER finding as moot 168 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 1/28/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (bw) (Entered: 01/28/2020)
177 ORDER: The eight Class Members' Objections are OVERRULED AND DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 171 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Motion Motion for Attorney Fees 158 is GRANTED. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 1/28/2020. (Attachments: # 1 List of Settlement Class Members who did not timely opt out.) (bw) (Main Document 177 replaced to correct typo and regenerated on 1/28/2020) (bw). (Entered: 01/28/2020)
***Civil Case Terminated per 177 Order. (ydm) (Entered: 01/28/2020)
178 MOTION for the Court's Assistance re opting out of settlement by Movant Juan C. Alvarez. (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(bw) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 178 MOTION for the Court's Assistance to Opt Out of Settlement. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(bw) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
179 RETURN Mail received re 175 Order on Motion for Joinder, Order on Motion for Order, addressed to Tywan A. Poole − Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward. (bw) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
180 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (Kronawitter, Joseph)a). (Entered: 02/27/2020)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 180 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time . The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(ss) (Entered: 02/27/2020)
181 ORDER granting 180 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Settlement Administrator shall make settlement payments to class members no later than March 28, 2020. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 2/28/2020. Mailed to pro se party Juan C. Alvarez, Montgomery Carl Akers, Tyreece Gray and Tywan A. Poole by regular mail. (smc) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
182 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (Kronawitter, Joseph). (Entered: 03/27/2020)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 182 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time . The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(ss) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
183 ORDER granting 182 Motion for Extension of Time. The Settlement Administrator shall make settlement payments to class members no later than April 27, 2020. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 3/27/2020. (smc) Modified title on 3/27/2020. (kao) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
184 RETURN Mail received re 181 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, addressed to Tywan A. Poole. Not Remailed. (smc) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
185 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct Final Class Member List to Honor Late Opt−Outs by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 185 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct Final Class Member List to Honor Late Opt−Outs. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(jc) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 185 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct Final Class Member List to Honor Late Opt−Outs. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(ss) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/15/2020 04/16/2020 04/16/2020
04/16/2020
04/27/2020 04/27/2020 04/28/2020
05/01/2020
05/01/2020

186 Unopposed MOTION to Clarify by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (Kronawitter, Joseph). (Entered: 04/15/2020)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 186 Unopposed MOTION to Clarify . The motion will be resolved by the District Judge.(ss) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
187 ORDER granting 185 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Amend Final Class List to Honor Late Opt−Outs. The Court will honor the late exclusion requests of Mr. Soto−Arreola and Mr. Alvarez removing them from the Revised Class List and adding them to the List of Opt−Outs. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 4/16/2020. (smc) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
188 ORDER granting 186 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Amend/Clarify Class Member Payment Methodology. The Settlement Administrator may make payments to non−incarcerated class members by issuing corporate checks rather than money orders. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 4/16/2020. (smc) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
189 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time by Plaintiffs Ashley Huff, Gregory L. Rapp (Kronawitter, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: 189 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge. (jc) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
190 ORDER granting 189 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. The Settlement Administrator shall make settlement payments to class members who are not incarcerated no later than April 29, 2020, and to class members who are incarcerated no later than June 12, 2020. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 4/28/2020. (smc) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
191 ORDER finding as moot 178 Motion for Court's assistance opting out of class action settlement. Mr. Alvarez's request has been honored as a late opt−out per Doc. 187. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 5/1/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (lml) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
NOTICE Re: Pro Se Mailing. Document 191 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 187 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, mailed to Juan C. Alvarez on 5/1/2020 by regular mail. (ca) (Entered: 05/01/2020)

 
 Case 2:17-cv-02320 Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp,

)

individually and on behalf of all others )

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CoreCivic, Inc., f/k/a Corrections

)

Corporation of America,

)

)

and

)

)

Securus Technologies, Inc.

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Case No. JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

COMPLAINT COME NOW Plaintiffs Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp, by and through counsel, and for

their causes of action against CoreCivic, Inc., f/k/a Corrections Corporation of America, and

Securus Technologies, Inc., state as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

Plaintiffs were formerly held by the United States Marshal Service at a private detention

facility in Leavenworth, Kansas (“CCA-Leavenworth”) operated by Defendants. As detainees,

Plaintiffs Huff and Rapp were allowed to make phone calls to their attorneys in Kansas and

Missouri. As alleged herein, Defendants improperly and without authorization or consent by

Plaintiffs, recorded confidential phone calls and meetings between detainees, including Plaintiffs

Huff and Rapp, and their attorneys. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated against Defendants for violations of the Kansas, Missouri and federal

wiretapping statutes.

15

Case 2:17-cv-02320 Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 2 of 11
PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Ashley Huff is an individual, and was held at CCA-Leavenworth. 2. Plaintiff Gregory Rapp is an individual that resides in Johnson County, Kansas, and was held at CCA-Leavenworth. 3. Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (“CCA”) (formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.) is a Maryland corporation registered to transact business in Kansas, transacting business in Missouri and available for service of process via registered agent National Registered Agents, Inc., 300-B E. High Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101. 4. CCA is a private corrections management company that manages prisons, jails and detention facilities, including CCA-Leavenworth. 5. Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. (“Securus”) is a Delaware corporation that is registered to transact business in Kansas and Missouri, and available for service of process via registered agent National Registered Agents, Inc. 120 S. Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri 63105. 6. Securus contracts with prisons and jails across the nation, including CCALeavenworth, to provide telephone and video conferencing services for detainees.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because: a. This is a civil action filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 brought by one or more
representative persons as a class action; b. The amount in controversy of all class members in the aggregate is believed to
exceed the sum or value of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs; c. Many members of the putative class are citizens of states other than Delaware and
Maryland, the states of Defendants’ residency, and d. All other factual conditions precedent necessary to empower this Court with subject
matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction have been satisfied.
16

Case 2:17-cv-02320 Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 3 of 11
8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in this District, and Defendants transact substantial business in this District and have sufficient contacts with this District to justify being fairly brought into this District.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. Defendant CCA is a private, for-profit corporation that manages detention facilities, including CCA-Leavenworth. The United States Marshal’s Service uses detention facilities operated and managed by CCA, including CCA-Leavenworth, to house federal inmates charged in the Western District of Missouri. 10. CCA-Leavenworth’s phone and videoconference services are provided by Securus. Securus charges families and others a fee for speaking to a detainee. It shares those proceeds with CCA-Leavenworth, which creates profit for both entities. 11. Plaintiffs were detained through a Pretrial Order of Detention issued by a United States Magistrate Judge, and remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal Service to be held pending resolution of their criminal cases. 12. Plaintiff Huff was remanded to the custody of United States Marshal Service through a Pretrial Detention Order entered in United States v. Gregory Rapp, et al., Case No. 14-cv-20067DJW, and was detained at CCA-Leavenworth on or about October 6, 2015. During the course of representation, Plaintiff Huff had numerous conversations with her attorney, both telephonically and in-person. 13. Plaintiff Rapp was remanded to the custody of United States Marshal Service through a Pretrial Detention Order entered in United States v. Gregory Rapp, et al., Case No. 14cv-20067-DJW, and was detained at CCA-Leavenworth on or about August 14, 2014. During the course of representation, Plaintiff Rapp had numerous conversations with his attorney, both
17

Case 2:17-cv-02320 Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 4 of 11
telephonically and in-person. 14. Detainees, including Plaintiffs Huff and Rapp, routinely contact their attorneys by
phone and/or in person to discuss confidential matters. They do so with the understanding that their conversations are private. Similarly, detainees understand that in-person and remote conversations with their attorneys are confidential and not recorded.
15. Plaintiffs Huff and Rapp routinely communicate with their attorneys both in person and also from locations in Kansas City, Missouri.
16. Plaintiffs Huff and Rapp made calls to their attorneys’ cellular phone. Plaintiff Huff and Rapp would use a prepaid phone card to call their attorneys. Upon information and belief, some or all of the calls to or from Plaintiffs occurred in the States of Kansas and Missouri.
17. Upon information and belief, Defendants recorded communications between detainees at CCA-Leavenworth and the outside world. The equipment they used to intercept, record, and/or share detainees’ calls neither facilitates those telephone calls and in-person meetings, nor were the recordings a necessary incident of the calls and meetings.
18. Upon information and belief, during in-person meetings between attorneys and their client/detainees, CCA and/or Securus also routinely recorded those meetings, without either the consent of either attorneys or their client/detainees. Video cameras were placed in attorney/client visitation rooms and those video cameras recorded communications between the attorneys and their client/detainees.
19. Courts in the District of Kansas have issued orders noting the extent to which CCA and Securus were involved in the systematic accessing and recording of attorney-client conversations at CCA-Leavenworth. See exhibits A and B attached hereto.
20. Defendants had no legitimate reason to record calls between detainees and their attorneys – the recordings do nothing to further the facilities’ security or public safety.
18

Case 2:17-cv-02320 Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 5 of 11
21. CCA and/or Securus were aware that they were operating a system that captured and recorded confidential attorney-client communications.
22. Plaintiffs were, and current detainees are, at substantial risk of having their attorney calls and meetings monitored, recorded and used against them to prejudice their cases.
23. The unlawful practices and procedures of Defendants described above affected all detainees at CCA-Leavenworth.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 24. Unless otherwise specifically stated herein, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), this action is instituted by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and
All detainees at CCA-Leavenworth, from June 1, 2012 to the present whose confidential communications with their attorneys were intercepted, disclosed or used by Defendants. 25. Upon information and belief, the class referenced above includes hundreds of putative class members residing in Missouri and Kansas and therefore, the class is so numerous that joinder of all members of the class would be impractical. 26. The claims for relief asserted herein on behalf of Plaintiffs and the putative class members present questions of law and fact common to the class, including: a. Whether Defendants have been intercepting the attorney-client communications of Plaintiffs and the Class; b. Whether Defendants have been disclosing the attorney-client communications of Plaintiffs and the Class; c. Whether Defendants have been using the attorney-client communications of Plaintiffs and the Class; d. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices described within this Complaint were unlawful; e. Whether Defendants’ actions were willful and/or intentional within the meaning of the applicable wiretap statutes; f. The amount of damages appropriate for Plaintiffs and the Class, and
19

Case 2:17-cv-02320 Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 6 of 11
g. Whether injunctive relief is warranted to prevent Defendants from causing future harm.
27. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the putative class in that:
a. Plaintiffs and the putative class members were all detained at CCA-Leavenworth;
b. Plaintiffs and the putative class members were all subjected to the same unlawful wiretapping policies and procedures of Defendants, and
c. The facts common to Plaintiffs and the putative class members give rise to the same claims asserted in this Complaint.
28. Plaintiffs, as representatives for the putative class, will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the putative class because:
a. Plaintiffs have knowledge regarding the facts and circumstances that give rise to their claims and the claims of the putative class members;
b. Plaintiffs are strongly interested and highly motivated to assert and protect their own rights and the rights of the putative class in a vigorous fashion; and
c. Plaintiffs have retained class counsel with substantial experience and expertise in class actions, commercial litigation and business litigation and which have the necessary and requisite resources. These law firms will vigorously assert and protect the interests of the putative class members.
29. The questions of law and/or fact common to Plaintiffs and the putative class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class, and a
class action as asserted herein is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy, in that, among other elements:
a. The interests of Plaintiffs and the interests of individual class members in controlling the prosecution of separate actions are outweighed by the advantages of adjudicating the common issues of fact and law by means of a class action;
b. Upon information and belief, there are no pending certified class actions concerning the controversy at issue or the claims asserted in this case applicable to Plaintiffs, or the putative class members set forth herein;
c. Concentrating litigation of these claims in this forum is desirable because it will prevent and avoid a duplication of effort and the possibility of inconsistent results, and this forum represents an appropriate forum to settle the controversy based on the location of Plaintiffs, the spread of putative class members and the location where the unlawful wiretap conduct occurred, and 20

Case 2:17-cv-02320 Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 7 of 11
d. Any difficulties that may be encountered in management of the class are greatly outweighed by the difficulties of handling multiple actions by individual class members; this class action is a superior method because it furthers judicial economy and efficiency and is in the best interests of Plaintiffs and the putative class members. COUNT I Violations of the Missouri Wiretap Statutes
30. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint. 31. The Missouri wiretap statute broadly prohibits the interception, disclosure or use of any wire, oral or electronic communication. 32. Defendants have violated (and may continue to violate) detainees’ rights under the Missouri Wiretap statute. The individual Plaintiffs, and all class members, are directly affected. 33. CCA and Securus have acted (and continue to act) unlawfully to intercept communications between Class members, like Plaintiffs, and their attorneys, and disclose those confidential communications to third parties, including law enforcement, in violation of the Act. 34. CCA and Securus violate the Missouri Wiretap Act when they intercept, disclose, use, or procure other persons to intercept, disclose or uses communications between class members, like Plaintiffs, and their attorneys. See R.S.Mo. § 542.418. 35. Plaintiffs are entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the Missouri Wiretap Act, codified at R.S.Mo. §§ 542.400 et seq. 36. Defendants are Persons within the meaning of the Missouri Wiretap statute. 37. Plaintiffs and the putative class are “aggrieved persons” within the meaning of the Missouri Wiretap statute. 38. As set forth herein, Defendants unlawfully recorded confidential communications between Plaintiffs, the putative class and their attorneys. 39. Upon information and belief, in some cases the Defendants disclosed class members’ confidential communications to third parties, such as law enforcement, in further violation of the
21

Case 2:17-cv-02320 Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 8 of 11
Missouri Wiretap statute. 40. Pursuant to the Missouri Wiretap Act, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are each
entitled to damages not less than one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or ten thousand dollars, whichever is greater.
41. Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to punitive damages. Defendants’ conduct has at all times been willful or intentional within the meaning of the Missouri Wiretap statute. Defendant is also liable pursuant to R.S.Mo. § 542.418 for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs/expenses incurred in this action.
42. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members are all similarly situated in that they were all subject to Defendants’ policy and practice of recording confidential attorney-client communications without consent of either party, in violation of the Missouri Wiretap statute.
COUNT II Violation of the Kansas Wiretap Statutes 43. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint. 44. The Kansas wiretap statute broadly prohibits the interception, disclosure or use of any wire, oral or electronic communication. 45. Defendants have violated (and may continue to violate) detainees’ rights under the Kansas Wiretap statute. The individual Plaintiffs, and all class members, are directly affected. 46. CCA and Securus have acted (and continue to act) unlawfully to intercept communications between Class members, like Plaintiffs, and their attorneys, and disclose those confidential communications to third parties, including law enforcement, in violation of the Act. 47. CCA and Securus violate the Kansas Wiretap Act when they intercept, disclose, use, or procure other persons to intercept, disclose or uses communications between class members, like Plaintiffs, and their attorneys. See K.S.A. § 22-2518.
22

Case 2:17-cv-02320 Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 9 of 11
48. Plaintiffs are entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the Kansas Wiretap Act, codified at K.S.A. §22-2502, et seq.
49. Defendants are Persons within the meaning of the Kansas Wiretap statute. 50. Plaintiffs and the putative class are “aggrieved persons” within the meaning of the Kansas Wiretap statute. 51. As set forth herein, Defendants unlawfully recorded confidential communications between Plaintiffs, the putative class and their attorneys. 52. Upon information and belief, in some cases the Defendants disclosed class members’ confidential communications to third parties, such as law enforcement, in further violation of the Kansas Wiretap statute. 53. Pursuant to the Kansas Wiretap Act, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or ten thousand dollars, whichever is greater. 54. Plaintiffs and the Class Members are further entitled to punitive damages. 55. Defendants are liable pursuant to K.S.A. 22-2518 for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs/expenses incurred in this action. 56. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members are all similarly situated in that they were all subject to Defendants’ policy and practice of recording confidential attorney-client communications without consent of either party, in violation of the Kansas Wiretap statute.
COUNT III Violation of the Federal Wiretap Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2510, et. seq.) 57. The Federal Wiretap Act broadly prohibits intercepting, disclosing, or using the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication. 58. Defendants have violated detainees’ rights under the Federal Wiretap Act. The
23

Case 2:17-cv-02320 Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 10 of 11
individual Plaintiffs, and the putative class members, are directly affected. 59. CCA and/or Securus have acted unlawfully to intercept communications between
Class members, like Plaintiffs, and their attorneys, and possibly disclosed those confidential communications to third parties, including prosecutors, in violation of the Act.
60. Defendants violate the Federal Wiretap Act when they:  Intentionally intercept, disclose, use, or procure other persons to intercept, disclose
or use wire oral or electronic communications (including, but not limited to phone calls and in-person meetings) between Plaintiffs and the putative class and their attorneys.  Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511. 18 U.S.C. § 2511. 61. Plaintiffs are entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided under the Federal Wiretap Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2511, et seq. 62. Defendants are Persons within the meaning of the Federal Wiretap statute. 63. Plaintiffs and the putative class are “aggrieved persons” within the meaning of the Federal Wiretap statute. 64. Pursuant to the Federal Wiretap Act, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to damages, but not less than actual damages suffered by the Plaintiffs and any profits made by Defendants as a result of the violation, or liquidated damages computed of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or ten thousand dollars, whichever is greater. 65. Plaintiffs and the Class Members are further entitled to punitive damages. 66. Defendants are liable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520 for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs/expenses incurred in this action.
24

Case 2:17-cv-02320 Document 1 Filed 06/01/17 Page 11 of 11
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all issues stated herein, and all issues so triable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the relief set forth above, for their costs and expenses for bringing suit, and for such other and further relief the Court or the trier of fact deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

__/s/ Joseph A. Kronawitter___________________

Robert A. Horn

Joseph A. Kronawitter

KS #19665

HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100

Kansas City, Missouri 64108

Telephone: (816) 421-0700

rhorn@hab-law.com

jkronawitter@hab-law.com

Brian Timothy Meyers Brian C. McCart LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN TIMOTHY MEYERS 1044 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, Missouri 64105 Telephone: (816) 842-0006 btmeyers@btm-law.com bmccart@btm-law.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

25

 
 Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 75 Filed 03/05/18 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ASHLEY HUFF AND GREGORY RAPP, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 17-2320-JAR-JPO

v.

CORECIVIC, INC. F/K/A CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, AND SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants CoreCivic, Inc. (“CoreCivic”) and Securus Technologies (“Securus”), alleging violations of the Missouri, Kansas, and Federal Wiretap Acts. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant CoreCivic’s Motion to Dismiss Count I of Complaint, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29), and Defendant Securus’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 31). The motions are fully briefed and the Court is prepared to rule. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants CoreCivic’s motion, and grants in part and denies in part Securus’ motion. I. Legal Standard To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must present factual allegations, assumed to be true, that “raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”1 Under this standard, “the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable

1Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 75 Filed 03/05/18 Page 2 of 10
likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.”2 The plausibility standard does not require a showing of probability that “a defendant has acted unlawfully,”3 but requires more than “a sheer possibility.”4
The plausibility standard enunciated in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly5 seeks a middle ground between heightened fact pleading and “allowing complaints that are no more than ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,’ which the Court stated ‘will not do.’”6 Twombly does not change other principles, such as that a court must accept all factual allegations as true and may not dismiss on the ground that it appears unlikely the allegations can be proven.7
The Supreme Court has explained the analysis as a two-step process. For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the court “must take all the factual allegations in the complaint as true, [but] we ‘are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’”8 Thus, the court must first determine if the allegations are factual and entitled to an assumption of truth, or merely legal conclusions that are not entitled to an assumption of truth.9 Second, the court must determine whether the factual allegations, when assumed true, “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”10 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
2Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in the original). 3Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 4Id. 5550 U.S. 544 (2007). 6Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 7Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 8Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 9Id. at 678–79. 10Id. at 679.
2

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 75 Filed 03/05/18 Page 3 of 10
misconduct alleged.”11 II. Factual Allegations
Defendant CoreCivic is a private, for-profit corporation that manages detention facilities, including the CoreCivic Detention Center in Leavenworth, Kansas (“CoreCivic Leavenworth”). The United States Marshal’s Service contracts with CoreCivic detention facilities, including CoreCivic Leavenworth, to house inmates charged with federal offenses in the Western District of Missouri and District of Kansas. Defendant Securus provides CoreCivic’s telephone and videoconference services. Plaintiffs Gregory Rapp and Ashley Huff were charged with criminal offenses and detained at the CoreCivic Leavenworth facility pending trial beginning in August 2014 and October 2015, respectively.
While they were detained at CoreCivic, Plaintiffs had conversations with their attorneys in person and over telephones located at CoreCivic Leavenworth. These calls were made to attorneys in Kansas and Missouri. Plaintiffs and other detainees believed these conversations were private, confidential, and not recorded. Defendants, however, recorded both in-person and telephone conversations between inmates and their attorneys. Defendants were aware that they were operating a system that captured and recorded attorney-client communications. Although the reason for the recordings was the safety of the facility, recording the attorney-client calls did not further the facilities’ security or public safety. III. Discussion
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Missouri Wiretap Act because the alleged interception of attorney-client communications occurred outside Missouri. Additionally, Securus argues that Plaintiffs fail to state claims under any wiretap statute because
11Id. at 678.
3

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 75 Filed 03/05/18 Page 4 of 10
the “business extension exception” applies to the wiretap claims. The Court addresses each argument in turn.
A. Missouri Wiretap Act Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Count I claim under the Missouri Wiretap Act fails because the law governing a wiretap claim depends on where the interception took place.12 Because the interception here allegedly took place in Kansas, Defendants contend the Missouri Wiretap Act does not apply. Plaintiffs respond that they do not oppose Defendants’ motions as to this claim based on the arguments and authorities Defendants have raised. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motions as they relate to Plaintiffs’ Count I claim under the Missouri Wiretap Act. Plaintiffs’ Count I claim is dismissed. B. Interception Claims Securus argues that under the “business extension exception” to the Kansas and Federal Wiretap Acts, the devices used to record Plaintiffs’ communications were not “electronic, mechanical, or other device[s],” and therefore were not “intercepted” within the meaning of the statutes. The Kansas and Federal Wiretap Acts prohibit the interception of “any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device” without authorization.13 The Wiretap Acts exclude from the definition of “electronic, mechanical, or other device” the following: (a) any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, (i) furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used
12See Huff v. Spaw, 794 F.3d 543, 547 (6th Cir. 2015) (“When determining whether an alleged interception is extraterritorial, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts as a question arising under Title III . . . we look to ‘where the interception took place.’”).
1318 U.S.C. § 2510(4); K.S.A. § 22-2514(3).
4

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 75 Filed 03/05/18 Page 5 of 10
in the ordinary course of its business; or (ii) being used by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties.14 Together, these provisions create the “business extension exception.”15 There are two prongs to
the business extension exception. First, the provider of wire communication service must furnish
the equipment “in the ordinary course of its business” or the subscriber or user must furnish the equipment for connection to wire communication facilities.16 Second, the subscriber must use the equipment “in the ordinary course of its business.”17
The statutes do not define the phrase “ordinary course of business.” But the phrase has
the same meaning in this context “as it does in the myriad of other legal contexts in which it is
used—an action is taken in the ordinary course of business if it is a routine activity of the business in furtherance of a legitimate business goal.”18 Generally, a business has an interest in
recording calls of a business nature, but private or personal calls cannot be recorded in the ordinary course of business.19 Indeed, courts have held that personal calls may not be
intercepted under the business extension exception “except to the extent necessary to guard against unauthorized use of the telephone or to determine whether a call is personal or not.”20
1418 U.S.C. § 2510(4); K.S.A. § 22-2514(9). 15Ali v. Douglas Cable Comms., 929 F. Supp. 1362, 1377 (D. Kan. 1996). 16Id. at 1378 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a); Sanders v. Robert Bosch Corp., 38 F.3d 736, 740 n. 9 (4th Cir. 1994)). 17Id. (citations omitted). 18Arias v. Mut. Cent. Alarm Servs., Inc., 182 F.R.D. 407, 416 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see Kirch v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., No. 10-2047-JAR, 2011 WL 3651359, at *9 n.42 (D. Kan. Aug. 19, 2011) (noting that “ordinary course of business” defense had merit because plaintiffs admitted that defendant obtained wire communications “to further legitimate business purposes”). 19See Ali, 929 F. Supp. at 1380 (“While DCC obviously has a legitimate business interest in monitoring business calls, it does not pretend to have any similar interest in monitoring the CSRs’ personal phone calls.”); United States v. Harpel, 493 F.2d 346, 351 (10th Cir. 1974) (“We hold as a matter of law that a telephone extension used without authorization or consent to surreptitiously record a private telephone conversation is not used in the ordinary course of business.”). 20Ali, 929 F. Supp. at 1380; Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577, 583 (11th Cir. 1983).
5

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 75 Filed 03/05/18 Page 6 of 10
The business extension exception generally applies where calls are recorded pursuant to a legitimate business purpose and the recorded employees or parties are on notice of the recordings.21 Covert use of a surveillance device must be justified by a legitimate business purpose.22 Furthermore, the fact that recordings are covert might be more significant where the business justification is less compelling.23
Plaintiffs concede that Securus meets the first prong of the business extension exception, insofar as Securus provided wire communication equipment to CoreCivic in the ordinary course of its business. Plaintiffs, however, contend that CoreCivic’s recording of inmate calls was not done in the ordinary course of business. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants recorded confidential phone calls Plaintiffs made from CoreCivic Leavenworth to their attorneys and others outside the facility. Defendants suggest—and Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise—that inmate calls were generally recorded for the purpose of managing the facility and maintaining security.24 As Defendant argues, courts have recognized that correctional facilities have a legitimate and strong interest in promoting and preserving security within their facilities.25
While a correctional facility’s interest in security is certainly robust and qualifies as a legitimate business purpose, this purpose does not place all recordings of inmate phone calls
21See James v. Newspaper Agency Corp., 591 F.2d 579, 581 (10th Cir. 1979) (“The installation was not done surreptitiously. Rather, all employees were advised in advance, in writing, of the proposed installation, and there was no protest. In our view, the present case comes squarely within the exception provided in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a).”).
22Sanders v. Robert Bosch Corp., 38 F.3d 736, 741 (4th Cir. 1994). 23Briggs v. Am. Air Filter Co., 630 F.2d 414, 420 n.9 (5th Cir. 1980). 24See Doc. 31 at 7–8. 25Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 560 (1979) (upholding visual body-cavity search at federal pretrial detention center based on the “significant and legitimate security interests of the institution”); U.S. v. Lewis, 406 F.3d 11, 18 (1st Cir. 2005) (recognizing investigatory powers of prisons “in order to preserve the security and orderly management of the institution”).
6

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 75 Filed 03/05/18 Page 7 of 10
within the business extension exception to the Wiretap Acts.26 To qualify under the business extension exception, the recordings must further a legitimate business purpose.27 This nexus must be stronger where, as here, the recordings are allegedly made without the recorded party’s knowledge.28 Plaintiffs allege here that the recording of inmates’ attorney-client calls did nothing to further the security or public safety within the correctional facility, and Defendants have pointed to no authority suggesting that general recording of attorney-client communications furthers a correctional facility’s security interests. Because the facts as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint do not reflect that the attorney-client recordings furthered a legitimate business interest, the Court finds that the recordings at issue were not made in the ordinary course of CoreCivic’s business, and that the business extension exception does not apply. Accordingly, the Court denies Securus’ motion to dismiss as it relates to Plaintiffs’ Counts II and III interception claims.
C. Disclosure Claims Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants violated the Kansas and Federal Wiretap Acts by disclosing wire communications. The Acts prohibit any person from intentionally “disclos[ing], or endeavor[ing] to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511.”29
26See Campiti v. Walonis, 611 F.2d 387, 392 (1st Cir. 1979) (holding that business extension and law enforcement exceptions to Federal Wiretap Act do not “provide the basis for a ‘prison exemption’ from the Act”).
27See James, 591 F.2d at 582 (holding that recordings fell within business extension exception because recordings were not surreptitious, and were done “for a legitimate business purpose”); Epps v. St. Mary’s Hosp. of Athens, Inc., 802 F.2d 412, 417 (11th Cir. 1986) (“A call must be more than merely related to business; the monitoring must advance a legitimate business purpose.”); Arias v. Mut. Cent. Alarm Servs., Inc., 182 F.R.D. 407, 416 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
28Briggs, 630 F.2d at 420 n.9. 2918 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c); see K.S.A. § 22-2518(1) (“Any person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this act shall have a civil cause of action against any
7

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 75 Filed 03/05/18 Page 8 of 10
Securus argues that Plaintiffs’ claims of disclosure are not plausible because Plaintiffs allege no more than a mere possibility that Securus unlawfully disclosed the communications.
The Court agrees that Plaintiffs fail to state plausible claims of disclosure under the Kansas and Federal Wiretap Acts. Plaintiffs allege that “[CoreCivic] and/or Securus” acted unlawfully by intercepting the wire communications and “possibly disclos[ing] those confidential communications to third parties.”30 But a plaintiff must allege more than “a sheer possibility” of unlawful conduct to state a plausible claim.31 Unlike their interception claims, which are supported by several paragraphs of factual allegations detailing the recordings,32 Plaintiffs’ disclosure claims rely on brief conclusory allegations that Defendants disclosed the recordings. The only factual allegation in support of their disclosure claims is that Defendants disclosed the communications to law enforcement officials and possibly other third parties.33 The remainder of Plaintiffs’ allegations “amount to nothing more than a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements’” of a wiretap disclosure claim.34
Plaintiffs point to two exhibits attached to their Complaint—a report by a Special Master and an Order issued by this Court in another case before this Court, United States v. Black et al., No. 16-CR-20032-JAR35—and suggest that these documents provide sufficient detail of their
person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communications.”).
30Doc. 1 ¶ 59. 31Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 32Doc. 1 ¶¶ 14–20. 33Id. ¶¶ 52, 59. 34See id. ¶¶ 47 (reciting elements of K.S.A. § 22-2518 and alleging that these elements are met), 52 (“Upon information and belief, in some cases the Defendants disclosed class members’ confidential communications to third parties, such as law enforcement, in further violation of the Kansas Wiretap statute.”), 60 (alleging that “Defendants violate the Federal Wiretap Act when they” disclose the contents of wire communications with knowledge that the communications were obtained in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 35Docs. 1-1, 1-2.
8

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 75 Filed 03/05/18 Page 9 of 10
disclosure claims.36 The Court may look to exhibits attached to a complaint in resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.37 But although the findings in these documents reflect that CoreCivic produced recordings,38 they do not reflect that Securus also produced recordings. Plaintiffs allege that “[CoreCivic] and/or Securus” disclosed the recordings, but Plaintiffs’ attached exhibits provide no additional factual details as to Securus’ alleged involvement in disclosing the communications. Without more, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not nudged their disclosure claims against Securus “across the line from conceivable to plausible.”39 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to state claims of disclosure under the Kansas and Federal Wiretap Acts against Securus. Securus’ motion is granted as it relates to Plaintiffs’ Counts II and III disclosure claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant CoreCivic, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Count I of Complaint, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) is granted. Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant Securus Technologies’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 31) is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s motion is granted as it relates to Plaintiffs’ Count I claim, denied as it relates to Plaintiffs’ Counts II and III wiretap interception claims, and granted as it relates to Plaintiffs’ Counts II and III wiretap disclosure claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
36See Doc. 44 at 9 n. 26. 37Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272, 1275 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1112 (10th Cir. 1991)) (“[W]e note that, in deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court may look both to the complaint itself and to any documents attached as exhibits to the complaint”). 38Doc. 1-2 at 11 (“To date, the investigation has revealed that [CoreCivic]-Leavenworth has produced audio recordings of telephone calls dating back to at least 2011.”). 39Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680.
9

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 75 Filed 03/05/18 Page 10 of 10

Dated: March 2, 2018

S/ Julie A. Robinson JULIE A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

 
 Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp,

)

individually and on behalf of all others )

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CoreCivic, Inc., f/k/a Corrections

)

Corporation of America,

)

)

and

)

)

Securus Technologies, Inc.

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Case No. 2:17-cv-02320

UNOPPOSED MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR ORDER CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS NOTICE, SETTING HEARING FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AND APPOINTING CLASS COUNSEL
Plaintiffs Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”),
individually and on behalf of the class of individuals they seek to represent (the “Settlement

Class”), by and through their counsel of record, move this Court for an Order: (1) certifying the

proposed Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for settlement purposes only; (2)

preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement and Release attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (the “Agreement”)1 as fair, reasonable and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, subject to a final determination by the Court; (3) approving the appointment of the Plaintiffs as representatives of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes; (4) approving the appointment of Class Counsel for

1 The parties have confirmed in writing their agreement with the form of the settlement agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and are in the process of circulating the Agreement for signatures. Plaintiffs will file a fully-executed version of the Agreement once all signatures are collected.

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 2 of 26
the Settlement Class for settlement purposes; (5) approving the form of mailed notice to be sent to the members of the Settlement Class; (6) directing the Settlement Administrator to, promptly after entry by the Court of the Preliminary Approval Order, mail the Class Notice to the Class Members by first-class mail to the last known address of such persons; (7) establishing a procedure for members of the Settlement Class to opt out and setting a date, forty-five days (45) after mailing of the Class Notice, after which no member of the Settlement Class shall be allowed to opt out of the Settlement Class; (8) establishing a procedure for the members of the Settlement Class to object to the Settlement and setting a date, forty-five days (45) after mailing of the Class Mail Notice, after which no member of the Settlement Class shall be allowed to object; (9) scheduling a hearing on final approval of this Agreement and establishing a procedure for the members of the Settlement Class to appear at the hearing; and (10) staying this case until further order of the Court, other than as may be necessary to effectuate the Settlement and carry out the terms of the Agreement or the responsibilities related or incidental thereto. In further support hereof, Plaintiffs provide the following Memorandum.2 I. APPLICABLE LEGAL AUTHORITIES
“Compromises of disputed claims are favored by the courts.” Williams v. First Nat’l. Bank, 216 U.S. 582, 595 (1910). When a proposed class-wide settlement is reached, it must be submitted to the court for preliminary approval. H. Newberg & A. Conte, Newberg on Class Actions (3d ed. 1992) at §11.41, p.11-87. Preliminary approval is the first of three steps that comprise the approval procedure for settlement of a class action. The second step is dissemination of notice of the settlement to all class members. The third step is a settlement approval hearing. Manual for Complex Litigation Third, §30.41 (2000).
2 Unless otherwise stated in the memorandum, Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt by reference the defined terms included in the Agreement.

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 3 of 26
The question presented on a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement is whether the proposed settlement is “within the range of possible approval.” Manual for Complex Litigation, §30.41 at 273. Preliminary approval is merely the prerequisite to giving notice so that the class may be “given the opportunity to address the court as to the reasons the proposed settlement is unfair or inadequate.” In re Plastic Cutlery Antitrust Litigation, 1998 WL 314655 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Preliminary approval does not require the trial court to answer the ultimate question of whether a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. That determination is made only after notice of the settlement has been given to the members of the class and after they have been given an opportunity to voice their views of the settlement or be excluded from the class. See J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.80[2-1], at 23-479 (2d ed. 1993). The Court will ordinarily grant preliminary approval where the proposed settlement “appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class and falls within the range of possible approval.” In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, 286 F.R.D. 488, 493 (D. Kan. 2012) (citing Am. Med. Ass'n v. United Healthcare Corp., No. 00 Civ. 2800(LMM), 2009 WL 1437819, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2009). The standards for preliminary approval of a class settlement are not as stringent as those applied for final approval. Id.
In considering a potential settlement for preliminary approval purposes, the trial court does not have to reach any ultimate conclusions on the issues of fact and law which underlie the merits of the dispute, and need not engage in a trial on the merits. In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, 286 F.R.D. 488, 493 (D. Kan. 2012) (quoting Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 88 n. 14, 101 S. Ct. 993, 67 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1981)).

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 4 of 26
Following preliminary approval, Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the mechanism for settling a class action including, as here, through a class certified for settlement purposes only. These include the requirements that the court “direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal”; that “[a]ny class member may object to the proposal”; and that the court may grant final approval of the settlement “only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); see also Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997). II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp (“Plaintiffs”) filed this lawsuit on June 1, 2017, alleging state and federal wiretap claims against two defendants, CoreCivic, Inc. (“CCA”) and Securus Technologies, Inc. (“Securus”). CCA is a Maryland corporation formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America, Inc., and is a private corrections management company that manages prisons, jails, and detention facilities, including a pretrial detention facility in Leavenworth, Kansas (“CCA-Leavenworth”). Securus is a Delaware corporation that contracts with prisons and jails across the nation, including CCA-Leavenworth, to provide telephone and video conferencing services for detainees.
Plaintiffs are individuals who were held by the United States Marshal Service at CCALeavenworth beginning on or about October 6, 2015 and August 14, 2014, respectively. Plaintiffs each allege to have had numerous phone conversations with their attorneys in Kansas while housed at CCA-Leavenworth, routinely contacting their attorneys by phone to discuss confidential matters. They assert they did so with the understanding that their conversations were private. Plaintiffs allege that CCA and Securus recorded communications between detainees at CCALeavenworth and the outside world, including calls between detainees and their attorneys. Plaintiff

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 5 of 26
Greg Rapp asserts he submitted a CCA form on December 13, 2016 requesting that calls to his attorney not be recorded, and that CCA confirmed in writing that it would not record such calls in the future. Plaintiffs allege that CCA and Securus recorded seven of Mr. Rapp’s subsequent phone calls to his attorney.
In 2016, in an unrelated criminal case, federal District Judge Julie Robinson entered an order for all detention facilities in Kansas and Missouri, including CCA, to immediately cease and desist all audio recording of attorney-client phone calls. Plaintiffs allege that after entry of Judge Robinson’s cease and desist order, Defendants continued to record attorney-client telephone calls. Plaintiffs allege that CCA and Securus improperly and without authorization or consent by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated detainees, knowingly recorded confidential phone calls between detainees and their attorneys, and for no legitimate reason related to the facilities’ security or public safety.
After Plaintiffs filed suit in June 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss certain aspects of the Plaintiffs’ claims. After full briefing on the issues, on March 5, 2018 the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motions to dismiss (see ECF # 75).
The parties then began extensive written discovery. In total, the parties have served or responded to 78 interrogatories, 197 requests for production of documents, 10 requests for admissions and produced 47,095 pages of documents, including 10.2 gigabytes of data. To maximize efficiency, by agreement the parties also produced in this case 5 depositions taken in a parallel wiretap case pending in federal court in Missouri that involved both Defendants.
In addition, Plaintiffs closely monitored activity in a criminal case, U.S. v. Black, 16-cr20032-JAR, including attending numerous full-day hearings and reviewing dozens of filings, all

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 6 of 26
of which provided extensive relevant information about the scope of detainee recordings at CCALeavenworth.
As the deadline for class certification approached, the parties began to discuss the possibility of mediating the case. The parties jointly asked the Court to stay the case pending settlement discussions, which the Court did on April 2, 2018. The parties were able to reach an agreement over the ensuing months, leading to the instant Settlement. III. THE SETTLEMENT
A. The Settlement Class Under the terms of the Agreement, the parties have agreed to a settlement involving a class defined as follows: All detainees at Leavenworth Detention Center who, during the period of June 1, 2014 through June 19, 2017, had their attorney-client telephone calls recorded by Defendants: (a) after the detainee requested privatization of his or her attorney’s phone number (subclass A); (b) after his or her attorney requested privatization of the attorney’s phone number (subclass B); (c) after Judge Robinson’s cease and desist order on August 10, 2016, in the case styled U.S. v. Black, Case No. 2:16CR-20032 (subclass C); or (d) after the detainee or his or her attorney otherwise notified one or more Defendants in writing of their attorney-client relationship and provided written notification of the attorney’s phone number at issue (subclass D). B. Terms of the Settlement
1. Consideration and Payments Under the terms of the Agreement, the Parties have agreed to settle this matter by creating a Settlement Fund of $1,450,000.00, of which CoreCivic shall fund $1,100,000.00 and Securus shall fund $350,000.00, in exchange for the releases described below. Per the terms of the Settlement, the Fund shall be apportioned as follows: First, Class Counsel will petition the Court for an award, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(h), in the total amount of $498,800 (approximately 34% of the Settlement Fund), which the Court may

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 7 of 26
award in its sole discretion. This award will be sought to pay for the costs of the third-party Settlement Administrator (RG2), class representative service awards of $5,0000 for both named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel’s attorney fees, litigation expenses and class notice costs in excess of the $2,000 contributed by Defendants. Class Counsel’s motion seeking this award will be filed no later than ten (10) days before Class Members must object or opt out of the Settlement, and all such filings will be posted to the settlement website administered by RG2. Defendants agree not to object to this request, nor Plaintiffs’ request for payment of service awards to the two named Plaintiffs. The requested $5,000 service awards for Plaintiffs Ashley Huff and Greg Rapp would be in recognition of the substantial time, devotion and commitment they have contributed to this litigation, and for their work in prosecuting the claims of the Settlement Class, including, but not limited to appearance at mediation, active involvement in the investigation and discovery process and general assistance in reaching the resolution proposed by the Settlement.
Second, the remaining Settlement Fund, after payment of the award referenced above, shall be provided to Class Members on a pro rata basis as follows:
 $432,000 to be divided among Class Members in subclasses A and B combined, up to a maximum of $10,000.00 per Class Member; o Class Counsel believe there are 73 Class Members in subclasses A and B combined; o Class Counsel anticipate that Class Members in subclasses A and B who do not opt out will each receive approximately $5,917.50 or more.
 $384,000 to be divided among Class Members in subclass C, up to a maximum of $10,000.00 per Class Member; o Class Counsel believe there are 193 Class Members in subclass C; o Class Counsel anticipate that Class Members in subclass C who do not opt out will each receive approximately $1,989.50 or more.
 $135,200 to be divided among Class Members in subclass D, up to a maximum of $500 per Class Member;

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 8 of 26
o Class Counsel believe there are 273 Class Members in subclass D; o Class Counsel anticipate that Class Members in subclass D who do not opt out will
each receive approximately $495.50 or more. Under the terms of the Settlement, in the event that the Settlement Fund, after payment of costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, is not fully depleted by payments to Class Members as outlined above, any unclaimed amounts shall be donated to Kansas Legal Services. In the event a Class Member does not cash their settlement check after six (6) months of issue, those checks will be void and those funds will be held in trust by the Settlement Administrator for a period of two (2) years from the date of Final Approval during which the Class Member entitled to such funds can request payment from the Settlement Administrator. Any unclaimed amounts remaining in trust at the close of the two-year period following Final Approval shall be donated to Kansas Legal Services within 30 days of the close of that two-year period. In addition to the $1,450,000 referenced above, under the terms of the Settlement the Defendants have also agreed to pay up to $2,000 ($1,000.00 by CoreCivic and $1,000.00 by Securus) incurred by the Settlement Administrator for postal charges in mailing out the Class Notice. All other Costs of Settlement Administration shall be paid from the award provided to Class Counsel referenced above. The actual distribution of payments from the Settlement Fund shall be performed by the Settlement Administrator, who shall mail money orders to all Class Members that did not opt out within thirty (30) days of Final Court Approval. Payment of attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel shall be paid within ten (10) days of the deposit of the Settlement Fund amount. For Class Members currently incarcerated within the Bureau of Prisons, the money order for those Class Members will be sent by U.S. Postal Money Order to the Bureau of Prisons collection office in Iowa, for deposit

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 9 of 26
into that Class Member’s commissary account. Class Members not currently incarcerated will have their money order sent to their current address.
2. Release in Exchange for Consideration In exchange for the consideration paid by Defendants under this Settlement, if a Class Member does not opt out of this Settlement then they agree that Defendants and all other Released Parties (as defined in the Agreement) are released from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of or relating to the monitoring, recording, and/or use of communications (including but not limited to telephone communications, in-person communications, and video communications) at the Leavenworth Detention Center that were, could have been, or should have been asserted against them by any Class Member and any claims or causes of action arising out of or relating to any related facts, conduct, omissions, transactions, occurrences, or matters that were or could have been alleged in this lawsuit. For the avoidance of doubt, these releases include, but are not limited to, releases of all such claims or causes of action that relate to the monitoring, recording, and/or use of communications that occurred up to and through August 8, 2019. If this settlement is approved, Class Members that have not opted out also agree they are waiving any and all claims for (1) actual damages; (2) punitive damages; (3) prejudgment interest; (4) and any other relief from CoreCivic or Securus for recording attorney communications at CCALeavenworth. The release contained in the Settlement Agreement expressly does not affect the rights of Class Members who timely and properly opt-out of the Settlement, nor does it affect the rights of any non-Class Member. Under the Settlement, the Court will retain jurisdiction to protect, preserve, and implement the Agreement, including, but not limited to, the release provisions of the Settlement. If the Settlement receives Final Approval, the Agreement shall be the exclusive remedy for any and all

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 10 of 26
released claims of Class Members and CoreCivic, Securus, and all other Released Parties shall not be subject to liability or expense of any kind to any Class Members except as set forth in the Agreement. Class Members will also be permanently barred from initiating, asserting, or prosecuting any and all released claims against the Released Parties in any court in the United States or any other tribunal.
Upon issuance of the Final Approval Order, Plaintiffs shall file a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, for all claims asserted in this lawsuit.
3. Opt Out Procedure Under the terms of the Settlement, if any Class Member decides they do not want to take part in the Settlement and wants to preserve any claims they may have against the Defendants, they may do so by opting out. To opt out, Class Members must submit an opt-out notice by mailing or delivering such notice in writing to the Settlement Administrator, postmarked no later than forty-five (45) days from the first bulk mailing of the initial notice of this Settlement by the Settlement Administrator. The Class Notice provided to Class Members will provide the specific date by which Class Members may elect to opt out. Any opt-out notice must state the name, address, and telephone number of the person requesting exclusion. The opt-out notice must also contain a clear statement communicating that such person elects to be excluded from the Settlement, does not wish to participate in the Settlement or receive any portion of the Settlement Payout, and elects to be excluded from any judgment entered pursuant to this Settlement. Any Settlement Class Member who submits a timely opt-out notice may not participate in the Settlement or object to the Settlement and shall be deemed to have waived any rights or benefits under this Settlement. The Settlement Administrator will report the names appearing on the Opt-

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 11 of 26
Out List and in the opt-out notices to the Court no less than ten (10) business days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. The Settlement Administrator will also prepare the Final Settlement Class Member List and provide it to the Parties and the Court no less than ten (10) business days prior to the Final Approval Hearing.
4. Objection Procedure Under the terms of the Settlement, Class Members that do not opt out have the right to object to the Settlement. Each Class Member wishing to object to the Settlement must submit a timely written notice of his or her objection. Such notice shall state: (i) the objector’s full name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address, (ii) information identifying the objector as a Settlement Class Member, which shall be (a) a copy of the Initial Notice addressed to him or her, or (b) unequivocal documentary proof that that he or she is within the definition of the Settlement Class described in this Settlement Agreement; (iii) a written statement of all grounds for the objection accompanied by any legal support for the objection; (iv) the identity of all counsel representing the objector; (v) the identity of all counsel representing the objector who will appear at the Final Approval Hearing; (vi) a list of all persons who will be called to testify at the Final Approval Hearing in support of the objection; (vii) a statement confirming whether the objector intends to testify at the Final Approval Hearing; and (viii) the objector’s signature or the signature of the objector’s duly authorized attorney or other duly authorized representative (along with documentation setting forth such authorization). These procedures are intended to ensure the efficient administration of justice and the orderly presentation of any Class Member objections to the Settlement Agreement, in accordance with such Class Member’s due process rights. Under the Settlement terms, any Class Member intending to object that fails to properly or timely file their objections with the Clerk of the Court, along with the required information and documentation set

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 12 of 26
forth above, or to serve them as provided above, shall not be heard during the Final Approval Hearing, nor shall their objections be considered by the Court.
To be timely, a Class Member’s written notice of an objection in appropriate form must be filed with the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Courtroom 427, 500 State Avenue, Suite 511, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, no later than forty-five (45) days after the first bulk mailing of the initial Class Notice, and served therewith upon both of the following: Co-Class Counsel Robert Horn and Joseph Kronawitter of Horn Aylward Bandy, LLC; counsel for Defendants, Thomas Kokoruda at Polsinelli PC, Kansas City, Missouri, and Ryan Harding at Husch Blackwell, Jefferson City, Missouri, all at the addresses reflected herein. The Class Notice provided to Class Members will provide the specific date by which Class Members must file their objection.
C. Representation This case has been competently and vigorously prosecuted and defended. Plaintiffs are represented by Robert A. Horn and Joseph A. Kronawitter of the law firm Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC, 2600 Grand Blvd., Ste. 1100, Kansas City, MO 64108 and Brian T. Meyers of the Law Offices of Brian Timothy Meyers, 1044 Main Street, Ste. 400, Kansas City, MO 64105 (“Class Counsel”). CoreCivic, Inc. is represented by Thomas G. Kokoruda, Lauren E. Tucker McCubbin, and Amy D. Fitts of the law firm Polsinelli P.C. (“CoreCivic Counsel”). Securus Technologies, Inc. is represented by Ryan Harding, 235 East High St., Suite 200, P.O. Box 1251, Jefferson City, MO 65102, of the law firm Husch Blackwell, LLP (“Securus Counsel”). Plaintiff, CoreCivic, and Securus are represented by counsel with extensive experience in complex and class-action litigation.

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 13 of 26
D. Investigation and Settlement As noted in Section II(B) above, in pursuing the claims of the Settlement Class, and in evaluating the merits of the Settlement, Class Counsel have reviewed voluminous data and documents, conducted witness interviews, held meetings and conferences between representatives of the Parties, and investigated the applicable law as applied to the facts regarding the alleged claims of the Settlement Class, the potential defenses thereto, and the damages incurred by the Settlement Class. Class Counsel has formed an adequate investigation of this case, which weighs in favor of settlement approval. CCA and Securus expressly deny all allegations of wrongdoing made in the Action, and contend that at all relevant times their actions with regard to the subject detainees were proper, appropriate and authorized under the law. Nevertheless, in an effort to reach a comprehensive settlement of the Action, beginning in August 2018, Class Counsel and CCA Counsel began to engage in extensive arms-length settlement negotiations. The Parties were fully and adequately informed of all facts necessary to evaluate the case for settlement. On May 20, 2019, the parties mediated the case before mediator Kirk Goza. Although the mediation session did not end with a resolution, the parties continued to negotiate the matter through Mr. Goza, reaching a settlement framework on June 10, 2019. Since then, the parties have worked extensively on settlement-related efforts, including developing a written settlement agreement that fully resolves this matter, adequate class notice information, and arranging for the service of an independent settlement administrator. IV. CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS Plaintiffs request certification of the Settlement Class defined above for purposes of obtaining Final Approval of the Settlement. Certification of the Settlement Class is appropriate

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 14 of 26
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 for the reasons set forth below. CCA and Securus do not oppose class certification of a Settlement Class under the terms agreed, and for settlement purposes only, but reserve all their objections to class certification.
A. The Settlements Satisfy Rule 23(a) Under Rule 23(a), a settlement class must meet four requirements: (1) numerosity; (2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation. In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 251 F.R.D. 629, 633 (D. Kan. 2008). The proposed Settlement Class satisfies all four requirements.
1. Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” There is no exact numerical formula for determining whether a class is sufficiently numerous, but it is a determination that must be made by the district court “in light of the particular circumstances of the case…” Ark. Ed. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. of the Portland, Ark. School Dist., 446 F.2d 763, 765 (8th Cir.1971); see also Rex v. Owens ex rel. State of Okla., 585 F.2d 432, 436 (10th Cir. 1978). Here, the proposed Settlement Class consists of five hundred and thirty-nine (539) individuals who were detained at CCA-Leavenworth and that fall within the class definition referred to above. Thus, joinder is impracticable and the numerosity requirement is satisfied.3
2. Commonality Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be “questions of law or fact common to the class.” See Am. Fin. Sys., Inc. v. Harlow, 65 F.R.D. 94, 107 (D. Md.1974), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1083 (1983)
3 Class actions have been routinely certified even where the class amounts to less than one hundred members. See, e.g., Ark. Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ., 446 F.2d 763, 756-66 (8th Cir. 1971) (20 class members sufficient); Swanson v. American Consumer Industries, 415 F.2d 1326, 1333 (7th Cir. 1969) (40 class members sufficient); Riordan v. Smith Barney, 113 F.R.D. 60 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (10–29 class members sufficient); Sala v. Nat’l RR Passenger Corp., 120 F.R.D. 494, 497 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (40–50 class members sufficient).

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 15 of 26
(commonality is not required on every question raised in a class action; rather, Rule 23 is satisfied when the legal question “linking the class members is substantially related to the resolution of the litigation.”).
In this case, numerous questions of law and fact are common to the Settlement Class and satisfy the requirement of “commonality.” The method of recording calls with respect to all Class Members was essentially uniform, and produced the same type of injury—a state or federal wiretap violation—arising from the recording of attorney-client communications. To be sure, Defendants’ ability to assert defenses to such claims, including a consent defense, differs among the class members. However, that issue was addressed by the formation of subclasses that receive graduated payments under the Settlement to take into account the relative strengths and weaknesses of the differing facts underlying the subclasses. Regardless, the uniformity of Defendants’ conduct visà-vis Class Members (i.e., Defendants’ recording of attorney-client calls) creates the legal question “linking the class members” which is substantially related to the resolution of the litigation.
The virtually identical nature of the Class Member’s claims is sufficient to satisfy the “commonality” requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).
3. Typicality Rule 23(a)(3) requires that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties (be) typical of the claims or defenses of the class.”4 Courts in this District have held:
This requirement does not mandate . . . that the claims of the representative plaintiffs be identical to those of the other class members. Rather, the Court should look to whether the claims of the representative plaintiff are antagonistic to the claims of the proposed class. “Typicality ensures that the class representative's claims resemble the class's claims to an extent that adequate representation can be expected.”
4 The “typicality” requirement, as customarily applied, tends to merge with “commonality." Gen. Tel. Co. of Southwest. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, n.13 (1982).

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 16 of 26
Swisher v. U.S., 189 F.R.D. 638, 640-641 (D. Kan. 1999) (citations omitted), quoting Edgington v. R.G. Dickinson and Co.,139 F.R.D. 183, 189 (D. Kan. 1991).
Under this standard, the claims of the Class Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to the claims of the Class Members.
The “typicality” of the Plaintiffs’ claims in this case exists also because each Class Member, including each Plaintiff, was allegedly treated the same by the Settling Defendants. That is, Defendants recorded calls for each Class Member that Plaintiffs assert were attorney-client calls, and Defendants assert that the Class Members consented to such recordings.5 Thus, each Class Member, including Plaintiffs, holds the same claims. The “typicality” requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied.
4. Adequate Representation The final requirement of Rule 23(a) is that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). To establish that they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, the representative plaintiffs must show that: (1) they are able to prosecute the action vigorously through qualified counsel and (2) there is no conflict between their interests and those of the class members. Schreiber v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 167 F.R.D. 169, 175 (D. Kan. 1996); see also 1 Newberg, Class Actions, § 3.22 at 198. The potential for disagreement or opposition from certain members of a class is not enough to establish that the representation of the class by the class representative is inadequate. In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig. 271 F.R.D. 221 (D. Kan. 2010). Only where the conflict is “fundamental” and goes to “specific issues in controversy” does a concern about
5 Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 183-84 (3d Cir. 2001) (“If the claims of the named plaintiffs and putative class members involve the same conduct by the defendant, typicality is established regardless of factual differences.”).

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 17 of 26
adequacy of representation arise. Id. (citing Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2003)).
With respect to the proposed Settlement Class, both components of Rule 23(a)(4) are satisfied. First, Class Counsel have substantial experience in the arena of complex and class-action litigation, and are qualified, experienced and have vigorously pursued this Litigation.6 Second, there is no evidence or indication of a conflict between the interests of the Plaintiffs and the Class Members. Indeed, all Class Members will benefit from the vindication of their asserted right to privileged, confidential communications with their attorneys. On the common issues and relief obtained, Class Members stand to gain as much as the Plaintiffs, and the Class Plaintiffs have advocated as vigorously for the Class Members as they have for themselves.7 Since the Plaintiffs and Class Members are alleged to have suffered the same injury, and the relief obtained through the Settlements will apply to all Class Members and Plaintiffs, the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met with respect to the proposed Settlement Class.8
B. Rule 23(b)(3) Standards Are Satisfied The proposed Settlements also meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), which allows class certification where common questions of law and fact predominate over individual questions and class treatment is superior to individual litigation. See, e.g., McGee v. Continental Tire N. Am., Inc., 2009 WL 539893 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2009). When assessing predominance and superiority, the Court may consider that the class will be certified for settlement purposes only, and that a showing
6 See Declarations of proposed Class Counsel, attached hereto as Exhibits 2-4. 7 See, e.g., McGee v. Continental Tire N. Am., Inc., 2009 WL 539893 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2009) (finding Rule 23(a)(4) satisfied where the named plaintiffs advocated as vigorously for absent class members as for themselves). 8 The uniformity of the proposed Settlement Class here stands in contrast to cases where courts have refused to certify classes under Rule 23(a)(4) because of significant differences among the interests of class members. See, e.g., Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625-26 (1997) (affirming Third Circuit determination that currently injured and exposure-only members of a proposed asbestos class had divergent interests in structure of settlement fund and thus could not be adequately represented in a single class).

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 18 of 26
of manageability at trial is not required. See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 619-20. The test is “whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Id. at 623.
Here, the proposed Settlement Class is sufficiently cohesive. As described above, the Plaintiffs and all Class Members seek redress for claims arising out of the same allegedly unlawful conduct—the recording of phone conversations between detainees and their attorneys. Because claims under the relevant wiretapping statutes arise out of events that occurred uniformly throughout the Settlement Class, common questions predominate over individual questions. Moreover, because Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of the Settlement Class only to effectuate the Settlement, the Court need not consider whether a trial would be unmanageable.9 Therefore, the proposed Settlement Class is particularly appropriate for certification for settlement purposes.
Furthermore, class resolution is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The Class Members’ claims could prove uneconomical for individual action because litigation costs could dwarf potential recovery.10
In summary, certification of the proposed Settlement Class is appropriate under Rule 23. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Court conditionally certify the proposed Settlement Class. V. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROPRIATE
Plaintiffs respectfully submit the Settlement is “within the range of possible approval” and thus, preliminary approval of the Settlement is warranted. Preliminary approval does not require the trial court to answer the ultimate question of whether a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. That determination is made only after notice of the settlement has been given to the
9 See Anchem, 521 U.S. at 620. 10 While the pursuit of claims by an individual may be economically inefficient and cost-prohibitive, the opt-out procedures provide a mechanism for Class Members who are dissatisfied with the Settlements to preserve and pursue individual claims that they may have.

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 19 of 26
members of the class and after they have been given an opportunity to voice their views of the settlement or be excluded from the class. See, e.g., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.80[2-1], at 23479 (2d ed. 1993).
Nonetheless, the terms of the Settlement are fair and provide a complete plan for notice to the Settlement Class, for Class Members to “opt out” of the Settlements, for Class Member objections, for payment to Class Members that do not opt out and for final certification of compliance with the terms of the Settlement. The terms of the Settlement also provide that, if for any reason the Settlement does not become final, the Parties will revert to their positions prior to the execution of the Settlement Agreement and this case will continue as if this motion and accompanying documents were never filed.
A. The Terms of the Proposed Settlement Are Fair A preliminary review of the terms of the proposed Settlement confirms it is fair. Indeed, the proposed Settlement comes to this Court with a presumption of fairness because Plaintiffs can show:
(1) That the settlement has been arrived at by arm’s-length bargaining; (2) That sufficient discovery has been taken or investigation completed to enable counsel and the court to act intelligently; [and] (3) That the proponents of the settlement are counsel experienced in similar litigation…. 4 Newberg, § 11.41. As to the first point, Class Counsel will submit at the final approval hearing a declaration from the parties’ mediator, Kirk Goza, attesting to the fact that the settlement was arrived at through arms-length negotiation. Regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ investigation, that point was discussed above; Class Counsel performed an extensive investigation and workup of this matter, and were poised to seek class certification when the settlement was reached. Finally, there should be no question that both Class Counsel and the Defendants’ counsel are all experienced in

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 20 of 26
class action litigation, and have worked at arms-length to achieve this settlement. Indeed, it has been noted that courts are to give “proper deference to the private consensual decision of the parties,” since:
the court’s intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual agreement negotiated between the parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 1988); see also, Marcus v. State of Kansas, Dept. of Revenue, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Kan. 2002) (“When settlement is reached by experienced counsel after negotiations in adversarial setting, there is initial presumption that settlement is fair and reasonable.”). Here, it is the judgment of the proposed Class Counsel that, in consideration of all factors, the Settlement is beneficial to the Class Members and in their best interests at this stage of the litigation. B. The Notice Plan Is Appropriate The second step in the class-action settlement process is providing the class with notice of the settlement. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) requires the Court to direct to class members the “best notice practicable” under the circumstances, including “individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173 (1974); In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 251 F.R.D. 629, 645 (D. Kan. 2008). To comport with due process, notice must be fashioned to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Wyandotte Nation v. City of Kansas City, Kansas, 214 F.R.D. 656, 664 (D. Kan. 2003). As the United States Supreme Court has held, notice by mail provides such “individual notice to all members” in accordance with Rule

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 21 of 26
23(c)(2). Eisen at 173. Where the names and addresses of the class members are easily ascertainable, individual notice through the mail is “clearly the ‘best notice practicable.” Id. at 175. If notice by mail is ordered and addresses are readily available, publication of notice is not necessary and is, in fact, “duplic[ative] and serve[s] no purpose.” See, e.g., United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist., 71 F.R.D. 10, 18 (D. Nev. 1975). The Federal Judicial Center considers notice reaching 70%-95% of the class to be reasonable. See Federal Judicial Center Notice Checklist.11
Here, the Parties have agreed to a class notice plan that is designed to be fair, effective and comport with due process, and the content of the notice itself is clear and comprehensible to Class Members. First, as to the Notice plan, the parties have specifically identified the five hundred and thirty-nine (539) people that their records indicate comprise the Settlement Class. This list is referred to as the Preliminary Settlement Class Member List. Indirect notice through publication is not necessary in this case; Class Members will receive direct notice of this Settlement through a copy of the Class Notice sent to their last known address. The parties have obtained contact information for all such individuals, many of whom are currently incarcerated within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). RG2 Administration, Inc. has been retained to serve as the notice and settlement Administrator, responsible for mailing the Class Notice and ultimately, mailing settlement payments.
Using the contact information provided by the Parties, RG2 will mail the Class Notice to all Class Members within forty-five (45) days of the initial approval of this Settlement by the Court, or within such other time as the Court may order. (Exhibit 1, Sec. V(A)). The Class Notice shall be mailed via first class mail through the United States Postal Service, postage pre-paid.
11 Available at: http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/NotCheck.pdf/$file/NotCheck.pdf.

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 22 of 26
Defendants will pay up to $2,000 for postal charges for mailing out the Class Notice. All additional costs of preparing, mailing, and publishing Class Notice shall be paid from the award provided to Class Counsel. RG2 will secure and maintain a Post Office Box or similar mailing address for the reception of Opt-Out forms or other correspondence related to the Settlement. No later than ten (10) business days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, RG2 shall provide an affidavit to the Court, with a copy to counsel for the Parties, attesting that Class Notice was disseminated in a manner consistent with the terms of the Settlement and in a manner that satisfies due process. (Exhibit 1, Sec. V(D)). As noted above, Class Members shall have the opportunity to opt-out of this Settlement. No less than ten (10) business days prior to the Final Approval Hearing referenced below, RG2 will prepare and provide to the Parties and the Court a list of all members of the proposed Settlement Class that excluded themselves from the Settlement (the “Opt-Out List”), along with the Final Settlement Class Member List. (Exhibit 1, Sec. VI(E)).
Second, as to the form of Class Notice, any notice provided to class members should “clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language” the nature of the action; the class definition; the class claims, issues, or defenses; that the class member may appear through counsel; that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and the binding effect of a class judgment on class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2). Here, the parties have prepared a detailed document to serve as the Class Notice, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. The Class Notice informs the Settlement Class of the background of the litigation and the proposed Settlement; describes the relief the proposed Settlement will provide; describes the procedures for participating in the Settlement, opting out of the Settlement, or submitting objections; and advises the Settlement Class that, if they do not opt out, they will be bound by any final judgment in this case, including a release of claims. Thus, the

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 23 of 26
Class Notice is accurate and informs the Settlement Class of the material terms of the Settlement and their rights pertaining to the Settlement.12 The Class Notice includes several methods by which Class Members can obtain additional information about the Settlement, including a website containing an explanation of the Settlement terms, providing key Settlement-related documents and providing instructions regarding how Settlement Class Members may Opt-Out.
Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that the notice program outlined above is appropriate under the circumstances, meets the requirements of due process, and distribution of the Class Notice in the manner set forth above is fair, appropriate and the “best notice practicable" under the circumstances.
C. CAFA Notice One element of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) is a requirement that within ten days after a proposed class-action settlement is filed with the Court, the settling defendant provide appropriate state and federal officials with notice of the proposed settlement, along with particular documents and information. 28 U.S.C. §1715 et seq. Here, Defendants will provide CAFA notices to the United States Attorney General and the attorney general in Kansas. If the Court grants preliminary approval to the Settlement, Plaintiffs will provide proof of CAFA compliance with their motion for final approval of the Settlements prior to any final fairness hearing. VI. ESTABLISHMENT OF A FINAL APPROVAL AND FAIRNESS HEARING The third step in the class action settlement process is the fairness hearing, by which the Court may evaluate and grant final approval to the proposed Settlements. At the fairness hearing,
12 See, e.g., In re Michael Milken & Assocs. Sec. Litig., 150 F.R.D. 57, 60 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (Class notice “need only describe the terms of the settlement generally”).

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 24 of 26

proponents of the Settlement may explain and describe the Settlement’s terms and conditions and

offer argument in support of Settlement approval; Class Members and/or their counsel may be

heard in support of or in opposition to the Settlement.

The parties propose the following schedule for final approval of the Settlements:

Day 0
45 days after Preliminary Approval 80 days after Preliminary Approval
90 days after Preliminary Approval

The Court grants Preliminary Approval
Settlement Administrator to mail Notice to Class Members
Class Counsel to file their motion for an award of fees, expenses and service awards
Last day for Class Members to opt-out of Settlement

90 days after Preliminary Approval

Last day for Class Members to file objections to Settlement

100 days or more after Preliminary Approval

The Court must hold a final approval hearing

VII. APPOINTMENT OF SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 23(g), a Court certifying a case as a class action “must
appoint class counsel.” Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court appoint the undersigned counsel, Robert A. Horn, Joseph A. Kronawitter and Brian T. Meyers, as Class Counsel. These attorneys have been appointed class counsel on numerous occasions, and their experience and expertise in class action litigation is set forth on their affidavits, attached hereto as Exhibits 2-4. The experience and qualifications of the proposed Class Counsel have been established, and the proposed class counsel will zealously prosecute the claims of the Class Members.

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 25 of 26
VIII. CONCLUSION The law favors and prefers the compromise and settlement of class-action suits,13 and
settlement is particularly appropriate in complex litigation like this one.14 Class Plaintiffs submit this Settlement is fair, reasonable and falls within the range of
possible approval.”15 Accordingly, Plaintiffs request the Court enter an order conditionally certifying the Settlement Class, preliminarily approving the Settlement, approving and ordering completion of the Notice Plan, scheduling a final fairness hearing and appointing the counsel for Plaintiffs as Class Counsel.
For the Court’s convenience, Plaintiffs have attached hereto as Exhibit 6 a proposed order granting preliminary approval that has been approved by all Parties.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an Order consistent with the foregoing, and for such other relief the Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of August, 2019.
13 See, Schering-Plough Corp. v. FTC, 402 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir. 2005); 4 Newberg, Class Actions § 11.41 (and cases cited therein); see also New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund v. Woodruff, 520 F.3d 1255, 1258 (10th Cir. 2008). 14 As a matter of sound policy, settlement of disputed claims is encouraged. Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Commission of City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982); Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1979); Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 576 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992)). 15 Manual for Complex Litig., §30.41 at 273.

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140 Filed 08/23/19 Page 26 of 26

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joseph A. Kronawitter

Robert A. Horn

KS Bar No. 70254

Joseph A. Kronawitter KS Bar No. 19665

HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100

Kansas City, MO 64108

Telephone 816-421-0700

Facsimile 816-421-0899

rhorn@hab-law.com

jkronawitter@hab-law.com

Brian Timothy Meyers

KS #70630

Brian C. McCart

KS #78700

LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN TIMOTHY MEYERS

1044 Main Street, Suite 400

Kansas City, Missouri 64105

Telephone: (816) 842-0006

btmeyers@btm-law.com

bmccart@btm-law.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 23, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send a notice of electronic filing to all person registered for ECF as of that date.
/s/ Joseph A. Kronawitter Attorney

 
 Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp,

)

individually and on behalf of all others )

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CoreCivic, Inc., f/k/a Corrections

)

Corporation of America,

)

)

and

)

)

Securus Technologies, Inc.

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Case No. 2:17-cv-02320-JAR

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CERTIFYING THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Order Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class, Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement, Directing Distribution of Class Notice, Setting Hearing for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Appointing Class Counsel (“Motion for Preliminary Approval”) (Doc. # 140). The parties to this litigation have entered into an Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Agreement”) to settle the above-captioned putative class action in its entirety. All capitalized terms used in this Order have the meaning as defined in the Agreement. A hearing was held on the Motion on September 13, 2019. Based on the submissions of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

1

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 2 of 14
The Court finds that venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), there is a sufficient basis for granting preliminary approval of the Agreement and authorizing the steps necessary to determine whether the Agreement should be given final approval and this case dismissed. Certification of the Settlement Class With respect to Plaintiffs’ request that the Court certify a class for settlement purposes only, the Court finds that the prerequisites of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied for purposes of settlement. The Court finds that the settlement class defined below consists of more than 530 persons distributed across the country, and joinder of all the members of the settlement class in a single proceeding would be impracticable, if not impossible, because of their number and dispersion. Commonality is also satisfied in this case for settlement purposes as a number of common issues exist among the members of the settlement class. Common issues predominate over individual issues in the context of settlement, and certification of an agreed-upon settlement class is a superior mechanism for resolving these claims. The Plaintiffs are also typical of the settlement class and representative of the claims and defenses presented by the parties in this case. The Court further finds that the Plaintiffs and their counsel have capably prosecuted the claims of this lawsuit, and the Court finds no conflict between the Plaintiffs or their counsel and the settlement class. Therefore, Plaintiffs and their counsel are adequate representatives for the settlement class. For purposes of preliminary approval only, the proposed Settlement also appears to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which allows class certification where common questions of law and fact predominate over individual questions and class treatment is superior to individual litigation. When assessing predominance and superiority, the
2

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 3 of 14
Court may consider that the class will be certified for settlement purposes only, and that a showing of manageability at trial is not required. Here, the proposed Settlement Class is sufficiently cohesive because the Plaintiffs and all Class Members seek redress for claims arising out of the same allegedly unlawful conduct. Because the wiretap claims of Plaintiffs and class members arise out of events that occurred uniformly throughout the Settlement Class, common questions predominate over individual questions. In addition, because Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of the Settlement Class only to effectuate the Settlement, the Court need not consider whether a trial would be unmanageable. Furthermore, class resolution is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.
Accordingly, for purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court certifies that this action may proceed as a class action on behalf of a Settlement Class consisting of:
All detainees at Leavenworth Detention Center who, during the period of June 1, 2014 through June 19, 2017, had their attorney-client telephone calls recorded by Defendants: (a) after the detainee requested privatization of his or her attorney’s phone number (subclass A); (b) after his or her attorney requested privatization of the attorney’s phone number (subclass B); (c) after Judge Robinson’s cease and desist order on August 10, 2016, in the case styled U.S. v. Black, Case No. 2:16-CR-20032 (subclass C); or (d) after the detainee or his or her attorney otherwise notified one or more Defendants in writing of their attorney-client relationship and provided written notification of the attorney’s phone number at issue (subclass D). The Court hereby appoints Plaintiffs Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp to serve as the class representatives. The Court hereby appoints Robert Horn and Joseph Kronawitter of the law firm Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC, 2600 Grand Blvd., Ste. 1100, Kansas City, MO 64108 and Brian T. Meyers of the Law Offices of Brian Timothy Meyers, 1125 Grand Blvd., Ste. 1610, Kansas City, MO 64106, to serve as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
3

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 4 of 14
The declaration that this litigation may be maintained for settlement purposes only as a class action and the appointment of Class Counsel shall be without force or effect if: (a) the Court does not give Final Approval to the Agreement and enter the Final Judgment contemplated by the Agreement, or (b) this Court’s approval of the Agreement and/or entry of the Final Judgment are reversed on appeal.
Rule 23(e)(1) The parties have provided the Court with information sufficient to enable it to determine
that providing notice to the proposed class is appropriate in this circumstance. The class is comprised of more than 530 individuals. Although the parties have last known address information for most of the class members, it is not known how current that address information is. Therefore, the parties have also (1) searched the federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) website in an effort to identify those members of the Settlement Class that are currently incarcerated at BOP facilities; and (2) sought updated last known address information, with permission of the Court, from the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services for the District of Kansas (the “Probation Office”) for all Settlement Class members who were not found to currently be in BOP custody based on that search. Using this information, class notice will be distributed to Settlement Class members by mailing copies of the notice documents via First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Settlement Class members at the following address(es):
1. For all Settlement Class members who are found to currently be in BOP custody (based on an updated search of the BOP website to be conducted by the parties not more than 5 business days in advance of mailing notice), notice shall be sent to the BOP facility where any such individual was listed as currently incarcerated.
4

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 5 of 14
2. For all other Settlement Class members, notice shall be sent to the last known address for that Settlement Class member that was provided by the United States Probation Office, if available. The parties are ordered to provide the names and Federal Bureau of Prisons Register Numbers, or in the alternative the case number, for individuals identified as Settlement Class members whose criminal cases originated in the District of Kansas. The Probation Office for the District of Kansas shall provide the last known mailing address for class members who are currently under, or have been under, supervised release. 3. If a Settlement Class member is not found to currently be in BOP custody based on the search described above, and the Probation Office did not provide last known address information for that individual, then notice shall be sent to the most recent last known address information otherwise available in the parties’ records. If last known address information for any such individual is lacking or incomplete, the Claims Administrator will conduct a reasonable search to identify a likely address for the Settlement Class member and send notice to that address. Notice is justified in this case based on the parties’ demonstration that this Court will likely be able to approve the proposed settlement under Rule 23(e)(2) and certify the class for purposes of judgment on the proposed settlement. The Court finds that the parties’ proposed notice plan sets forth a reasonable manner to provide notice to all class members who would be bound by the proposed settlement. Approval is hereby given to the form of, and the provisions for, disseminating the Class Notice containing the text indicated in the revised class notice provided by the parties. The Court finds that the Class Notice constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members of the Settlement
5

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 6 of 14
Class who can be identified with reasonable effort, and constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to the Settlement Class in full compliance with the requirements of applicable law, including the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The costs of providing Class Notice to the Settlement Class are provided in the Settlement Agreement.
To facilitate the Class Notice and settlement administration process, the Court appoints RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 as the Settlement Administrator.
Within forty-five (45) days after entry of this Order, the Settlement Administrator shall deliver to the United States Postal Service for first-class mailing, postage prepaid, copies of the approved Class Notice addressed to each member of the Settlement Class. To the extent any notice is returned, the Settlement Administrator shall undertake reasonable efforts to locate current addresses for said class member(s).
Rule 23(e)(2) Since the proposed settlement would bind the class members, at the final approval
hearing this Court will grant final approval only on finding that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate after considering the factors set forth in Rule 23(e)(2). However, for purposes of preliminary approval, the Court makes the following tentative rulings, subject to revision during the final approval process:
a. The class representatives and Class Counsel appear to have adequately represented the class. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel appear to have vigorously and fully analyzed the claims and defenses in this case, and Plaintiffs appear to have been actively involved in the litigation through investigation, discovery and the mediation and settlement process.
6

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 7 of 14
b. The proposal appears to have been negotiated at arm's length, through the services of mediator Kirk Goza. The Court will consider and review the affidavit of Mr. Goza submitted in connection with the final approval briefing, before making a final determination of this factor.
c. The relief provided for the class appears to be adequate, taking into account: i. the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; The Court is informed by the parties that pursuant to the federal wiretap act, the most a plaintiff can receive is $10,000.00 in statutory damages, plus attorney fees. Here, there is a risk that there will be no future relief to the class members without this settlement—the Court has made no finding on the merits of this case, and the defendants appear to believe strongly that their consent defense applies to most, if not all, class members. Under this settlement, class members will receive compensation in the very near future, not at some distant time in the future after several more years of litigation and appeals. ii. the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-member claims; The parties’ proposal to distribute settlement funds appears reasonable and adequate on its face at this preliminary stage. The parties propose direct payments, with no claim form requirement from class members; if class members do nothing, they will receive payment. The parties propose to send money orders to class members that are not currently incarcerated. Class members currently within the Bureau of Prisons system will have
7

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 8 of 14
their settlement funds deposited into their commissary account. Class members are also allowed to contact the Settlement Administrator to direct their payment elsewhere. Class members have up to two years from the date of final approval to claim their funds from the Settlement Administrator. Any unclaimed funds will be donated to Kansas Legal Services, a non-profit law firm and community education organization helping low- and moderate-income people in Kansas.
iii. The terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees, including timing of payment; Class Counsel have indicated they will petition the Court for an award, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(h), in the total amount of $498,800 (approximately 34% of the Settlement Fund), which the Court may award in its sole discretion. It appears this award will be sought to pay for the costs of the third-party Settlement Administrator (RG/2), class representative service awards of $5,0000 for both named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel’s attorney fees, litigation expenses and class notice costs in excess of the $2,000 contributed by Defendants. Class Counsel’s motion seeking this award will be filed no later than ten (10) days before Class Members must object or opt out of the Settlement, and all such filings will be posted to the settlement website administered by RG/2. This will allow class members to raise any issues or objections they have with the requested fee. Defendants have agreed not to object to the requested fee. The requested $5,000 service awards for Plaintiffs Ashley Huff and Greg Rapp would be in recognition of the substantial time, devotion and
8

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 9 of 14
commitment it appears they have contributed to this litigation, and for their work in prosecuting the claims of the Settlement Class. Any approved payments to Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs would not occur until after final approval, and close in time to the payments made to class members. iv. Any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); Based on the submissions and representations of the parties, the Court finds there are no other agreements made in connection with the settlement, other than the Agreement and prior versions of the Agreement. d. The proposal appears to treat class members equitably relative to each other. Class Counsel have informed the Court that based upon the agreed class member list, they anticipate: Class Members in subclasses A and B who do not opt out will each receive approximately $5,917.50 or more; Class Members in subclass C who do not opt out will each receive approximately $1,989.50 or more, and Class Members in subclass D who do not opt out will each receive approximately $495.50 or more. Class Counsel informed the Court that this progressive payment structure is based upon the relative strengths and weaknesses of the claims by class members within the four subgroups such that, class members that have the strongest claims (in terms of the facts and the potential defenses to their claims) receive the largest payments, while class members that have what appear to be weaker claims receive less. The final result is, in Class Counsel’s view, an equitable division of the settlement proceeds. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the terms of the Agreement are
9

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 10 of 14
sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate for purposes of preliminary approval. The Court further finds that the Settlement is within the range of reasonableness and possible judicial approval, such that: (a) a presumption of fairness is appropriate for the purposes of preliminary settlement approval; and (b) it is appropriate to effectuate notice to the Settlement Class, as set forth below and in the Settlement, and schedule a Final Hearing to assist the Court in determining whether to grant final approval to the Settlement and enter Final Judgment. This determination permitting notice to the Settlement Class is not a final finding that the Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate, but simply a determination that there is probable cause to disseminate the Class Notice to the Settlement Class and to hold a hearing on final approval of the Settlement.
Rule 23(e)(3) As noted above, the Court finds there are no other agreements made in connection with the settlement, other than the Agreement and prior versions of the Agreement. Rule 23(e)(4) Because this Court did not previously certify this case as a class action, this Court finds that Rule 23(e)(4) is not applicable to this settlement. Rule 23(e)(5) Any member of the Settlement Class who intends to object to any aspect of the Settlement (including Class Counsel's Fee and Costs Application or the Service Award application) must mail any such objection to the Court, and provide copies to the Parties, as set forth in the Class Mail Notice. The objection must be in writing, be postmarked within sixty (60) days after the mailing of the Class Mail Notice to the Settlement Class, and shall specifically include:
10

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 11 of 14
a. The name, address and telephone number of the class member filing the objection;
b. Information identifying the objector as a Settlement Class Member, which shall be:
i. A copy of the Initial Notice, or ii. Unequivocal documentary proof that he or she is within the definition
of the Settlement Class described in the Settlement Agreement. c. written statement of all grounds for the objection accompanied by any legal
support for the objection; d. the identity of all counsel representing the objector; e. the identity of all counsel representing the objector who will appear at the Final
Approval Hearing; f. a list of all persons who will be called to testify at the Final Approval Hearing in
support of the objection; g. a statement confirming whether the objector intends to testify at the Final
Approval Hearing; and h. the objector’s signature or the signature of the objector’s duly authorized attorney
or other duly authorized representative (along with documentation setting forth such authorization). Any member of the Settlement Class who does not make his or her objection in the manner provided above and in the Class Mail Notice shall be deemed to have waived such objection and shall forever be foreclosed and barred from making any objection to the fairness, adequacy, or reasonableness of the Settlement or to any other provision of this Agreement. Any member of the Settlement Class who does not file a timely written objection to the Settlement and notice of his intent to appear at the Final Hearing shall be foreclosed from seeking any adjudication or review of the Settlement by appeal or otherwise. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(5)(B), no payment or other consideration may be provided in connection with forgoing or withdrawing an objection, or) forgoing, dismissing, or abandoning an appeal from a judgment approving the proposal, unless approved by this Court after a hearing.
11

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 12 of 14
Notice Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715 Defendants will provide appropriate governmental notices required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715. The parties are directed to provide proof of Defendants’ compliance in this regard prior to the Final Approval Hearing. Class Member Opt-Outs Each member of the Settlement Class who wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class must submit a request for exclusion to the address(es) specified in the Class Notice. Such requests for exclusion must be postmarked within sixty (60) days after the mailing of the Class Mail Notice to the Settlement Class. Any opt-out notice must state the name, address, and telephone number of the person requesting exclusion. The opt-out notice must also contain a clear statement communicating that such person elects to be excluded from the Settlement, does not wish to participate in the Settlement or receive any portion of the Settlement Payout, and elects to be excluded from any judgment entered pursuant to this Settlement. Any request for exclusion must be personally signed by the member of the Settlement Class requesting exclusion, unless such person is deceased or legally incompetent. In the event such individual is deceased or legally incompetent, the personal representative or guardian must sign the request for exclusion. Any request for exclusion must include a reference to “Huff v. CoreCivic, Inc., Case No. 17-cv02320” and be mailed to the parties as set forth in the Class Notice. Any member of the Settlement Class who fails to submit a timely and complete request for exclusion shall be subject to and bound by all proceedings, orders, and judgments of this Court pertaining to the Settlement Class pursuant to the Agreement. Any member of the Settlement Class who timely and properly submits a request for exclusion shall not: (a) be bound by any orders or judgments entered in the Action relating to the Settlement; (b) be entitled to relief under, or be affected by, the
12

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 13 of 14
Agreement; (c) gain any rights by virtue of the Agreement; or (d) be entitled to object to any aspect of the Settlement.
The Settlement Administrator shall provide the Court with a list of any persons who timely and adequately file a request to opt out and be excluded from the Settlement, such list to be provided at least ten days (10) days before the Final Approval Hearing.
Final Approval Hearing Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.S. § 1715(d), a hearing (the “Final Hearing”) shall be held on January 28, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., before the undersigned, at the United States Courthouse, 500 State Avenue, Courtroom 427, Kansas City, Kansas, 66101 for the purpose of finally determining whether the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court via entry of the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment contemplated by the Agreement and, if so, what amount of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs should be awarded to Class Counsel and whether a Service Award shall be awarded to the Plaintiff. The Parties to the Agreement shall file any motions, memoranda or other material in support of final approval of the Agreement no later than seven (7) days after the deadline for the filing of objections as provided in this order. The Parties to the Agreement shall also file any response to timely and properly filed objections to the Agreement no later than seven (7) days after the deadline for the filing of objections as provided in this order, and shall serve copies on the Class Members that filed objections. Following the Final Approval Hearing, and based upon the entire record in this matter, the Court will decide whether the Agreement should be approved and, if so, what amount of fees
13

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 146 Filed 09/26/19 Page 14 of 14

and expenses should be awarded to Class Counsel. If appropriate, the Court will issue a Final

Approval Order and Final Judgment memorializing its decision.

In the event the Settlement is not approved by the Court, or for any reason the parties fail

to obtain a Final Judgment as contemplated in the Settlement, or the Settlement is terminated

pursuant to its terms for any reason, then the following shall apply:

a. All orders and findings entered in connection with the Settlement shall become null and void and have no further force and effect, shall not be used or referred to for any purposes whatsoever, and shall not be admissible or discoverable in any other proceeding;

b. Nothing contained in this Order is, or may be construed as, any admission or concession by or against Plaintiffs, CoreCivic or Securus on any point of fact or law; and

c. Neither the Settlement terms nor any publicly disseminated information regarding the Settlement, including, without limitation, the Class Notice, court filings, orders and public statements, may be used as evidence. In addition, neither the fact of, nor any documents relating to, either party’s withdrawal from the Settlement, any failure of the Court to approve the Settlement and/or any objections or interventions may be used as evidence.

Pending final determination of this application for approval of the Agreement, and

subject to further order of this Court, all proceedings in the Action other than as may be

necessary to effectuate the Settlement and carry out the terms of the Agreement and

responsibilities related or incidental thereto shall be stayed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2019

S/ Julie A. Robinson JULIE A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

 
 Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp,

)

Individually and on Behalf of All Others )

Similarly Situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CoreCivic, Inc., f/k/a Corrections

)

Corporation of America,

)

)

and

)

)

Securus Technologies, Inc.

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Case No. 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, AND OVERRULING
OBJECTIONS
This case is before the Court on several matters: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval

of Class Action Settlement (Doc. 171); (2) certain class member objections to the Settlement

(Doc. 161, Doc. 162, Doc. 163, Doc. 165, Doc. 170, Doc. 172-2, Doc. 172-3, and Doc. 172-4),

and (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorney Fees, Expenses and Incentive Awards (Doc. 158). The parties to this litigation have entered into an Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Agreement”)1 to settle the above-captioned putative class action in its entirety. All capitalized terms used in this Order have the meaning as defined in the

Agreement.

The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on January 28, 2020. Having considered the

issues, the briefing supplied by the parties and objectors, and being fully advised in the premises,

1A copy of which is filed as Doc. 140-2.
1

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 15
the Court made findings from the bench. For the reasons stated in detail on the record and as supplemented herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Settlement, the parties and class members pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. I. THE CLASS SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF FRCP 23
On September 26, 2019, this Court preliminary certified, for settlement purposes only, the following class:
All detainees at Leavenworth Detention Center who, during the period of June 1, 2014 through June 19, 2017, had their attorney-client telephone calls recorded by Defendants: (a) after the detainee requested privatization of his or her attorney’s phone number (subclass A); (b) after his or her attorney requested privatization of the attorney’s phone number (subclass B); (c) after Judge Robinson’s cease and desist order on August 10, 2016, in the case styled U.S. v. Black, Case No. 2:16CR-20032 (subclass C); or (d) after the detainee or his or her attorney otherwise notified one or more Defendants in writing of their attorney-client relationship and provided written notification of the attorney’s phone number at issue (subclass D). See Order, Doc. 146. Having considered the matter, the Court grants final certification to the Class for purposes of settlement only, for the reasons set forth below. A. Rule 23(a) Requirements
1. Numerosity The Settlement Class consists of more than five hundred individuals who were detained at CCA-Leavenworth and fall within the class definition referred to above. Thus, joinder is impracticable and the numerosity requirement is satisfied.
2. Commonality In this case, numerous questions of law and fact are common to the Settlement Class and satisfy the requirement of commonality. The method of recording calls with respect to all
2

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 3 of 15
Class Members was alleged to be uniform, and alleged to produce the same type of injury—a state or federal wiretap violation—arising from the recording of attorney-client communications. Defendants’ ability to assert defenses to such claims, including a consent defense, differs among the class members. However, that issue was addressed by the formation of subclasses that receive graduated payments under the Settlement to take into account the relative strengths and weaknesses of the differing facts underlying the subclasses. The uniformity of Defendants’ alleged conduct in relation to Class Members (i.e., Defendants’ recording of attorney-client calls) creates the legal question “linking the class members” which is substantially related to the resolution of the litigation. The very similar nature of the claims held by Class Members is sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).
3. Typicality Typicality is satisfied as to the Class because each Class Member, including each Plaintiff, was allegedly treated the same by Defendants, and the claims of the Plaintiffs are identical to those of the Class—statutory wiretap violations. Thus, each Class Member, including Plaintiffs, holds the same claims. The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied.
4. Adequate Representation The Court finds that both aspects of the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) have been satisfied. First, there is no evidence or indication of a conflict between the interests of the Plaintiffs and the Class Members and all Class Members will receive economic benefits from the Settlement. On the common issues and relief obtained, Class Members stand to gain as much as the Plaintiffs—depending on the subclass each falls within—and the Plaintiffs have advocated as vigorously for the Class Members as they have for themselves. Second, Class Counsel have substantial experience in the arena of complex and class-action litigation, and are qualified,
3

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 4 of 15
experienced and have vigorously pursued this Litigation. Since the Plaintiffs and Class Members are alleged to have suffered the same injury, and the relief obtained through the Settlements will apply to all Class Members and Plaintiffs, the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met with respect to the proposed Settlement Class.
B. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements The Court finds that the Settlement meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Here, the proposed Settlement Class is sufficiently cohesive because the Plaintiffs and all Class Members seek redress for claims arising out of the same allegedly unlawful conduct. Because the wiretap claims of Plaintiffs and Class Members arise out of events that occurred uniformly throughout the Settlement Class, common questions predominate over individual questions. In addition, because Plaintiffs seek certification of the Settlement Class only to effectuate the Settlement, the Court need not consider whether a trial would be unmanageable. Furthermore, class resolution is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The Class Members’ claims could prove uneconomical for individual action because litigation costs could dwarf potential recovery.2 Accordingly, for purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court grants final certification to the Class identified above. The Court confirms the appointment of Plaintiffs Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp to serve as the class representatives. The Court confirms the appointment of Robert Horn, Joseph Kronawitter and Brian T. Meyers to serve as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
2While the pursuit of claims by an individual may be economically inefficient and cost-prohibitive, the optout procedures provide a mechanism for Class Members who are dissatisfied with the Settlements to preserve and pursue individual claims that they may have.
4

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 5 of 15
II. THE SETTLEMENT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23(E) A. Rule 23(e)(1) The Court approved a notice plan designed to provide notice to all individuals deemed to
be members of the Class as defined above. See Order, Doc. 146. The Court found that the parties’ proposed notice plan set forth a reasonable manner to provide notice to all class members who would be bound by the proposed settlement. Approval was given to the form of, and the provisions for, disseminating the Class Notice containing the text indicated in the revised class notice provided by the parties. The Court found that the Class Notice constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members of the Settlement Class who can be identified with reasonable effort, and constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to the Settlement Class in full compliance with the requirements of applicable law, including the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The costs of providing Class Notice to the Settlement Class are provided in the Settlement Agreement.
Plaintiffs have provided the Court with the affidavit of the Settlement Administrator, RG2 Administration. See Doc. 171-3. Based upon the representations in the affidavit, it appears that the Settlement Administrator faithfully executed the Court approved notice plan.
B. Rule 23(e)(2) The Court finds the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate after considering the following:
1. The class representatives and Class Counsel have adequately represented the class. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have vigorously and fully analyzed the claims and defenses in this case, and Plaintiffs have been actively involved in the litigation through investigation, discovery and the mediation and settlement process, as evidenced by their
5

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 6 of 15
affidavits submitted in conjunction with the motion for attorney fees. See Doc. 158-2, Doc. 1583, Doc. 158-4, Doc. 158-5, Doc. 158-6, Doc. 158-8, and Doc. 158-9.
2. The Court has considered and reviewed the affidavit of Mr. Goza submitted in connection with the final approval briefing. See Doc. 171-2. Based upon the affidavit, the Court is satisfied the Settlement was negotiated at arm’s length.
3. The Court finds the relief provided to Class Members is adequate in light of the following:
i. the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; There is a risk in this case that there will be no future relief to the class members without this settlement—the Court has made no finding on the merits of this case, and Defendants appear to believe strongly that, based on the case law, their consent defense applies to most, if not all, class members. Under this settlement, class members will receive compensation in the very near future, not at some distant time in the future after several more years of litigation and appeals. ii. the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to
the class, including the method of processing class-member claims; The parties’ proposal to distribute settlement funds is reasonable and adequate. The parties propose direct payments, with no claim form requirement from class members; if class members do nothing, they will receive payment. The parties propose to send money orders to class members that are not currently incarcerated. Class members currently within the Bureau of Prisons system will have their settlement funds deposited into their commissary account. Class members are also allowed
6

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 7 of 15
to contact the Settlement Administrator to direct their payment elsewhere. Class members have up to two years from the date of final approval to claim their funds from the Settlement Administrator. Any unclaimed funds will be donated to Kansas Legal Services, a non-profit law firm and community education organization helping low and moderate-income people in Kansas. iii. The terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees, including
timing of payment; Class Counsel have petitioned the Court for an award, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(h), in the total amount of $498,800 (approximately 34% of the Settlement Fund), which is discussed in detail below. The fee award will pay for the costs of the third-party Settlement Administrator, class representative service awards of $5,000 for both named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel’s attorney fees, litigation expenses and class notice costs in excess of the $2,000 contributed by Defendants. Class Counsel filed their motion seeking this award December 27, 2019 ten (10) days before the deadline for Class Members to object or opt out of the Settlement, and all such filings were posted to the settlement website administered by the Settlement Administrator. Class members were allowed to raise any issues or objections they have with the requested fee. Defendants have agreed not to object to the requested fee. The requested $5,000 service awards for Plaintiffs Ashley Huff and Greg Rapp would be in recognition of the substantial time, devotion and commitment they have contributed to this litigation, and for their work in prosecuting the claims of the Settlement
7

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 8 of 15
Class. Approved payments to Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs will not occur until after final approval, and close in time to the payments made to class members. iv. Any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); Based on the submissions and representations of the parties, the Court finds there are no other agreements made in connection with the settlement, other than the Agreement and prior versions of the Agreement. 4. The Court finds that the Settlement treats class members equitably relative to each other. Class Members in subclasses A and B who do not opt out will each receive approximately $5,917.50 or more; Class Members in subclass C who do not opt out will each receive approximately $1,989.50 or more, and Class Members in subclass D who do not opt out will each receive approximately $495.50 or more. This progressive payment structure is based upon the relative strengths and weaknesses of the claims by Class Members within the four subgroups such that, Class Members that have the strongest claims (in terms of the facts and the potential defenses to their claims) receive the largest payments, while class members that have what appear to be weaker claims receive less. The final result is an equitable division of the settlement proceeds. Based upon the foregoing, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2), the Court finds that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate for purposes of final approval. C. Rule 23(e)(3) As noted above, the Court finds there are no other agreements made in connection with the settlement, other than the Agreement and prior versions of the Agreement.
8

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 9 of 15
D. Rule 23(e)(4) Because this Court did not previously certify this case as a class action, this Court finds that Rule 23(e)(4) is not applicable to this settlement. E. Rule 23(e)(5) There were eight (8) objections filed by Class Members. It should be emphasized that Federal Rule 23’s opt-out mechanism is specifically designed to allow dissatisfied class members the opportunity to remove themselves from the lawsuit and preserve their claims. The fact that only seven (7) Class Members elected to opt out of the Settlement seems to reveal two facts: (1) Class Members understood the Class Notice and how to opt out; and (2) the vast majority of the Class agreed to be bound by this Settlement. The fact that so few class members objected to the Settlement weighs in favor of final approval. As to the eight specific objections raised by Class Members, the Court finds them without merit and overrules their objections. Antonio Enriquez contends that his Settlement payment should be larger than the projected payments reflected in the Class Notice. See Doc. 172-2. That objection is overruled and denied. This Court must accept the Settlement or reject it as a whole; it cannot rewrite the parties’ agreement. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court found the Settlement as a whole to be fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class, including the distribution plan, when weighed against the costs and risks of continued litigation. Albert Banks, Anthony Thompson, Johnny Lee Ivory, Enoch Clark, and Tyler Sutton contend they were miscategorized for purposes of the Settlement by being placed in the wrong subclass, which affects the amount of compensation they will receive. See Doc. 161, Doc. 162, Doc. 163, Doc. 165, and Doc. 172-4. These objectors contend their subclass designation did not take into account, “the prejudicial effect from the government having access to my privileged
9

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 10 of 15
phone calls prior to my federal trial”. See Doc. 162, and Doc. 163. The Court agrees with Class Counsel that those unsupported statements provide no substantive basis to conclude the Settlement as a whole is unfair or unreasonable. As Class Counsel pointed out, no such objector has provided specific information to support their assertion of miscategorization, despite Class Counsel’s request for them to do so. Class Counsel also assert they “triple and quadruple checked” to ensure Class Members were appropriately categorized in order to ensure there were no errors. On this record, the Court finds these objections to be without merit and they are overruled and denied.
Dale’von Dixon contends he lacks sufficient information to understand his rights, and believes the settlement is unfair. See Doc. 172-3. However, the Court-approved Class Notice fully explained the Settlement and Class Member rights. In addition, Class Counsel represent that they have corresponded with this Class Member four times to answer his questions and keep him updated about the Settlement. The Court finds no basis to reject the Settlement solely because this Class Member did not feel adequately informed. The Tenth Circuit has articulated factors that courts must use in assessing whether a settlement is fair and reasonable. As noted in this Order, the Settlement meets those criteria. This objection is overruled and denied.
Reginald Smith contends that the Class Notice was inadequate because it required Class Members to access the internet. There is no basis for that suggestion. The parties submitted a proposed Notice, and this Court approved the Notice after ordering modifications. The Notice was detailed and provided forms so Class Members need not access a computer or printer. In other words, the Notice was designed so that Class Members did not have to seek information online. Mr. Smith also contends the Settlement is unfair because Class Members were not given a copy of the complaint, or the motion for attorney fees. But, there is no requirement that class
10

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 11 of 15
members receive copies of actual pleadings along with the class notice. Moreover, the Class Notice informed Class Members that they could contact the Settlement Administrator to receive additional information. Mr. Smith could have taken advantage of that benefit and written the Settlement Administrator asking for a copy of the complaint or fee motion. Alternatively, Mr. Smith could have written Class Counsel and asked for these materials. There is no evidence that he did so.
Mr. Smith next contends there was no explanation of the disparity between settlement subclasses. The Notice provided the formula for distributing the Settlement Fund among Class Members. But there is no requirement that the Class Notice explain all factors that went into the payment analysis. Finally, Mr. Smith objects to the amount of the requested attorney fees. The Court will take up Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees and ensure that any fee award is fair and reasonable in accordance with Tenth Circuit law. Mr. Smith’s objections are overruled and denied. III. APPLICATION OF THE FAIRNESS FACTORS
A. The Settlement Was Fairly and Honestly Negotiated Plaintiffs submitted the declaration from the parties’ mediator, Kirk Goza, attesting to the fact that the settlement was arrived at through arms-length negotiation. Regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ investigation, the Court is satisfied that Class Counsel fully investigated this matter in order to enable Class Counsel to act intelligently with respect to the Settlement and Class Members. Finally, there is no doubt the proponents of the Settlement are experienced in consumer class action litigation. B. Whether Serious Questions of Law and Fact Exist The Court is aware that Defendants have contended from the outset that Plaintiffs and the
11

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 12 of 15
Class Members (as well as other participants to the calls at issue) consented to the recording of their calls, and the Court is aware of the case law in this Circuit and others supporting Defendants’ contention. In addition, the amount of statutory damages awarded for a federal wiretap violation is discretionary, subject only to a maximum cap. Thus, serious questions of law and fact exist in this matter.
C. Whether an Immediate Recovery Outweighs the Possibility of Future Relief After Protracted and Expensive Litigation
The Court finds that litigating this action through trial would have been expensive and time-consuming for the parties. Plaintiffs have indicated that Defendants would have contested class certification, and any class certification ruling would have been susceptible to a permissive appeal to the Tenth Circuit pursuant to Rule 23(f), which would have only prolonged this matter. Discovery and trial on the merits, followed by any post-trial motions and appeal, could have further prolonged this matter. The complexity and expense of further litigation was great, and weighs in favor of an immediate recovery through the Settlement.
In addition, the risks of maintaining this litigation as a class action through trial and appeal weigh in favor of approving this Settlement with its certain outcome and payment structure, especially where, as here, Class Members had the right to opt-out and pursue their own remedy if they so desired. By reaching this Settlement, the parties avoided protracted litigation and established a means for a prompt resolution of Class member claims. Given the alternative of a long, complex trial and appeal process — as well as the substantial risks involved — the availability of prompt relief under the Settlement is highly beneficial to the Class.
D. The Judgment of the Parties That the Settlement Is Fair and Reasonable The Court finds that Class Counsel and Defendants’ counsel are experienced in class action litigation, and have worked at arms-length to achieve this settlement, which they believe
12

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 13 of 15
to be fair and reasonable. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds this Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. IV. CAFA NOTICE, OPT OUTS AND RELEASE
A. Notice Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715 Based upon the submission of Plaintiffs, the Court is satisfied that appropriate notices were provided by Defendants to governmental entities as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715. See Doc. 173. B. Class Member Opt Outs The Settlement Administrator has provided the Court with a list of Class Members that filed opt outs in order to exclude themselves from the Settlement. Accordingly, the Court finds that the class members listed on Exhibit C to the Settlement Administrator’s affidavit (filed as Doc. 171-6), have opted out of the Settlement. 3 C. Release Provisions Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and upon the Effective Date of the Agreement, Defendants CoreCivic and Securus and all other Released Parties are released from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of or relating to the monitoring, recording, and/or use of communications (including but not limited to telephone communications, in-person communications, and video communications) at the Leavenworth Detention Center that were, could have been, or should have been asserted against them by any Settlement Class Member who has not timely and properly opted out of the Settlement Agreement and any claims or causes of action arising out of or relating to any related facts, conduct, omissions, transactions,
3 Attached as Exhibit 1 is a list, provided by the Settlement Administrator, of all known Settlement Class Members who did not timely opt out.
13

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 14 of 15
occurrences, or matters that were or could have been alleged in the Lawsuit. For the avoidance of doubt, the releases set out herein shall include, but not be limited to, releases of all such claims or causes of action that relate to the monitoring, recording, and/or use of communications that occurred up to and through August 8, 2019. Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class Members (save those class members who excluded themselves by opting out) waive any and all claims for (1) actual damages; (2) punitive damages; (3) prejudgment interest; (4) any request for relief from CoreCivic or Securus for recording attorney communications at Leavenworth Detention Center.
The claims or causes of action that were or could have been asserted and could form the basis for an issue on appeal by Plaintiffs, Defendants, or the Settlement Class Members are hereby released. The release contained herein does not affect the rights of Settlement Class Members who timely and properly opted out of the Settlement Agreement, nor does it affect the rights of any non-Settlement Class Member.
The Court retains jurisdiction to protect, preserve, and implement the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, the release contained in the Agreement. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction in order to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate in administering and implementing the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, orders enjoining Settlement Class Members from prosecuting claims that are released pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. V. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FEES, EXPENSES AND INCENTIVE AWARDS
Plaintiffs move the Court for an award of $498,800 to be paid from the common fund, such amount consisting of: attorney fees in the amount of $455,300; expenses in the amount of $33,500, and $10,000 in class representative incentive awards to be divided equally between the two named Plaintiffs.
14

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 177 Filed 01/28/20 Page 15 of 15

Under Rule 23(h), in a certified class action the Court may award reasonable attorneys’

fees and nontaxable costs which are authorized by law or the parties’ agreement. Class Counsel

will receive an attorney fee of $455,300, which is 31% of the common fund. For the reasons

stated on the record, the requested fee is reasonable as a percentage of the common fund.

Plaintiffs and Class Counsel also seek reimbursement of litigation expenses totaling

approximately $33,500, the bulk of which is the expense of hiring the Settlement Administrator to

coordinate the class notice campaign and disburse settlement funds. Because these expenses are of

the type routinely charged to paying clients, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award reimbursing them

for these costs.

Class Counsel also request class representative incentive awards in the amount of $5,000

each for named Plaintiffs Greg Rapp and Ashley Huff. The Court has reviewed the affidavits of

Plaintiffs submitted with the motion, and finds the requested awards to be fair and reasonable in

light of the Plaintiffs’ involvement in this litigation.

For the reasons set forth on the record and as detailed above,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the eight Class Members’

Objections are overruled and denied and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action

Settlement (Doc. 171) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Expenses and

Class Representative Incentive Awards (Doc. 158) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020

S/ Julie A. Robinson JULIE A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

 
 Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 1 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp,

)

individually and on behalf of all others )

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CoreCivic, Inc., f/k/a Corrections

)

Corporation of America,

)

)

and

)

)

Securus Technologies, Inc.

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Case No. 2:17-cv-02320

UNOPPOSED MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR ORDER CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS NOTICE, SETTING HEARING FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AND APPOINTING CLASS COUNSEL

Exhibit 1

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 2 of 23
Execution Version
AMENDED & RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
THIS AMENDED & RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE (“Restated Settlement Agreement”) is entered into between Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class, as defined below (collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs”) and CoreCivic, Inc., f/k/a Corrections Corporation of America (“CoreCivic”) and Securus Technologies, Inc. (“Securus”), (together referred to herein as “Defendants”), as defined below.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants styled Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp v. CoreCivic, Inc., f/k/a Corrections Corporation of America, and Securus Technologies, Inc., and which is now pending as Case No. 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (the “Lawsuit”); and
WHEREAS, in the Lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated state and federal wiretap statutes by recording attorney communications involving Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members at Leavenworth Detention Center; and
WHEREAS, Defendants deny and dispute each of the allegations in the Lawsuit and assert that they have not violated state and federal wiretap statutes regarding attorney communications involving Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members, and assert that they have at all times complied with all laws; and
WHEREAS, no class has yet been certified in the Lawsuit; and
WHEREAS, the Court has not yet resolved the issues of liability and damages in the Lawsuit and each party believes it would have a meritorious argument on appeal depending on the court’s determination of those issues and both parties recognize a risk if this Lawsuit proceeds; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants desire to avoid the further expense of litigation and to settle and voluntarily compromise any and all claims or causes of action between them that have arisen or that may arise in the future which in any way relate to Plaintiffs’ claims or the facts alleged in the Lawsuit, both individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree to the following definition of the Settlement Class:
All detainees at Leavenworth Detention Center who, during the period of June 1, 2014 through June 19, 2017, had their attorney-client telephone calls recorded by Defendants: (a) after the detainee requested privatization of his or her attorney’s phone number (subclass A); (b) after his or her attorney requested privatization of the attorney’s phone number (subclass B); (c) after Judge Robinson’s cease and desist order on August 10, 2016, in the case styled U.S. v. Black, Case No. 2:16-CR-20032 (subclass C); or (d) after the detainee or his or her attorney otherwise notified one or more Defendants in writing of their attorney-client relationship and provided written notification of the attorney’s phone number at issue (subclass D).

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 3 of 23

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulate and agree that this proposed Settlement Class is properly certifiable, solely for the purposes of settlement, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 as a subsection (b)(3) class, in that the elements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1-4) are satisfied, and common issues of law and fact predominate over individual questions with regard to the issues related to approval of this Settlement Agreement is appropriate; and

WHEREAS, the Parties previously executed a Settlement Agreement & Release and related Amendment to resolve this matter (the “Original Settlement Agreement”), but now desire to enter into this Restated Settlement Agreement to clarify or modify certain terms of their settlement; and

WHEREAS the Parties state that this Restated Settlement Agreement shall, upon execution by all parties, revoke the previously executed Original Settlement Agreement, and this Restated Settlement Agreement will thereafter govern the terms of the Parties’ settlement;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, and with the intention of being legally bound thereby, the parties hereto do covenant and agree as follows:

I. DEFINITIONS:

For purposes of this Settlement Agreement, the following terms are defined as follows:

A. “Plaintiffs” refers to Plaintiffs Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp;

B. “Lawsuit” refers to the matter styled Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp v. CoreCivic, Inc., f/k/a Corrections Corporation of America, and Securus Technologies, Inc., and which is pending as Case No. 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas;

C. “Settlement Administrator” refers to the qualified outside business selected and retained by Class Counsel to provide the following services: Program design and management, class notification, and settlement distribution and reporting;

D. “Settlement Class” refers to the group of persons composed of “All detainees at Leavenworth Detention Center who, during the period of June 1, 2014 through June 19, 2017, had their attorney-client telephone calls recorded by Defendants: (a) after the detainee requested privatization of his or her attorney’s phone number (subclass A); (b) after his or her attorney requested privatization of the attorney’s phone number (subclass B); (c) after Judge Robinson’s cease and desist order on August 10, 2016, in the case styled U.S. v. Black, Case No. 2:16-CR-20032 (subclass C); or (d) after the detainee or his or her attorney otherwise notified one or more Defendants in writing of their attorney-client relationship and provided written notification of the attorney’s phone number at issue (subclass D).”

E. Class;”

“Settlement Class Member” refers to an individual within the “Settlement

2

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 4 of 23
F. “Claimant” or “Participating Claimant” refers to a Settlement Class Member who does not Opt-Out;
G. “Settlement Payout” and/or “Settlement Fund” refers to the payout provided to Plaintiffs, the Participating Claimants, and Class Counsel as part of the consideration of this Settlement Agreement, as further defined in Section III.A of this Settlement Agreement;
H. “Class Counsel” shall mean Robert Horn and Joseph Kronawitter of the law firm Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC, and Brian Timothy Meyers of the Law Offices of Brian Timothy Meyers;
I. “Costs of Settlement Administration” shall mean all actual and reasonable costs associated with or arising from Settlement Administration; as more fully described (below), this shall include without limitation, (1) postal and copying charges for mailing out the Class Notice (defined below); (2) cost of distributing payments to Participating Claimants; and (3) fees paid to the Settlement Administrator. All such costs, beyond the first $2,000.00 (paid $1,000.00 by CoreCivic and $1,000.00 by Securus), shall be paid from the Settlement Fund;
J. “Court” shall mean the Court in which the Lawsuit is pending, with The Honorable Julie A. Robinson, or any duly appointed successor;
K. “Preliminary Approval Order” shall mean the order of the Court preliminarily approving this Settlement Agreement;
L. “Effective Date” shall mean the date on which the Final Approval Order is entered by the Court;
M. “Final Approval Hearing” shall mean the hearing at which the Court will consider and finally decide whether to enter the Final Approval Order;
N. “Final Approval Order” shall mean an order from the Court approving (1) this Settlement Agreement; (2) payment of the Class Counsel fees and expenses; (3) dismissal of Plaintiffs’ individual and class claims with prejudice; and (4) such other final rulings as are contemplated by this Settlement Agreement;
O. “Final Court Approval” shall mean the date the Court enters the Final Approval Order (if no after-hearing motion is filed and no appeals are taken therefrom) or the date of the final resolution of after-hearing motions or appeal, so long as the Final Approval Order is upheld or affirmed in its entirety;
P. “Objection Date” shall mean the date agreed upon by the Parties or otherwise ordered by the Court by which Settlement Class Members must object to the Settlement Agreement’s terms or provisions and to submit any required statements, proof, or other materials and/or argument in support thereof. This date shall be forty-five (45) days from the first bulk mailing of the initial notice of this Settlement by the Settlement Administrator;
3

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 5 of 23
Q. “Opt-Out Deadline” shall mean the date agreed upon by the Parties or otherwise ordered by the Court by which any Settlement Class Members who wish to be excluded from the Settlement must mail their Opt-Out Notice with the postmark date used for determining timeliness with this deadline. This date shall be forty-five (45) days from the first bulk mailing of the initial notice of this Settlement by the Settlement Administrator;
R. “Opt-Out Notice” or “Opt-Out” shall mean any timely and valid request by any Settlement Class Member for exclusion from the Settlement;
S. “Opt-Out List” shall mean a written list prepared by the Settlement Administrator of all Settlement Class Members who submit timely and valid Opt-Out Notices;
T. “Parties” shall mean Plaintiffs and Defendants;
U. “Settlement” shall mean the agreement by the Parties to resolve the Lawsuit, the terms of which have been memorialized and provided for in this Settlement Agreement;
V. “Settlement Agreement” shall mean this Settlement Agreement and any exhibits attached hereto;
W. “Released Parties” shall mean CoreCivic and Securus, and any of each of their parent companies, subsidiaries, or other affiliated companies, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and limited partnerships and their successors, assigns, predecessors in interest and any current and former owners, directors, officers, partners, general partners, limited partners, managers, agents, alleged agents, physicians, representatives, stockholders, shareholders, attorneys and insurers, and/or employees of such entities;
X. “Class Notice” shall mean the legally required notice provided to all Settlement Class Members informing them of the Settlement.
Y. “Preliminary Settlement Class Member List” shall mean the list of Settlement Class Members prior to removal of individuals who file valid and timely Opt-Out Notices.
Z. “Final Settlement Class Member List” shall mean the list of Settlement Class Members who did not file valid and timely Opt-Out Notices and thus who shall be considered Participating Claimants under this Agreement.
II. REQUIRED EVENTS:
A. After execution of this Settlement Agreement by all Parties:
1. Class Counsel and Defendants’ respective counsel shall take all necessary steps to obtain entry of the Preliminary Approval Order and the Final Approval Order.
2. Plaintiffs shall move for entry of a Preliminary Approval Order, which by its terms shall, inter alia:
4

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 6 of 23
a. Preliminarily approve the terms of the Settlement Agreement for purposes of issuing the Class Notice;
b. Certify the proposed Settlement Class, including making any findings necessary to support the certification of said Settlement Class;
c. Approve the contents of the Class Notice and the publication of the same; and
d. Schedule a Final Approval Hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed Settlement and the applications for an award of Class Counsel fees and expenses, and to consider whether the Court should issue a Final Approval Order.
3. The Parties shall use their best efforts, consistent with the terms of this Settlement Agreement, to obtain a Final Approval Order.
4. In the event that the Court fails to issue the Preliminary Approval Order or fails to issue the Final Approval Order, the Parties agree to use their best efforts, consistent with this Settlement Agreement, to cure any defect(s) identified by the Court. If said defects cannot be cured in order to secure Preliminary and/or Final Approval by the Court, then the Settlement Agreement is void and all parties are restored to their former positions pre-settlement.
5. The Parties acknowledge that approval, consummation, and implementation of the Settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement are essential. The Parties shall cooperate with each other in good faith to carry out the purposes of and effectuate this Settlement Agreement, shall promptly perform their respective obligations hereunder, and shall promptly take any and all actions and execute and deliver any and all additional documents and all other materials and/or information reasonably necessary or appropriate to carry out the terms of this Settlement Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby.
III. CONSIDERATION:
A. Settlement Fund. The parties have agreed to settle this matter by creating a Settlement Fund of $1,450,000.00, of which CoreCivic shall fund $1,100,000.00 and Securus shall fund $350,000.00, in exchange for the releases described in Section VIII. The Settlement Fund shall be apportioned as follows:
1. Class Counsel will seek court approval of an award consisting of attorneys’ fees, costs, litigation expenses, class notice and Costs of Settlement Administration expenses and class representative incentive awards in the total amount of $498,800 (approximately 34% of the Settlement Fund). Defendants agree not to object to this request.
5

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 7 of 23
2. The remaining Settlement Fund, after payment of costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, shall be provided to Participating Claimants on a pro rata basis as follows: $432,000 to be divided among Participating Claimants in subclasses A and B combined (up to a maximum of $10,000.00 per Participating Claimant); $384,000 to be divided among Participating Claimants in subclass C (up to a maximum of $10,000.00 per Participating Claimant), and $135,200 to be divided among Participating Claimants in subclass D (up to a maximum of $500 per Participating Claimant). The Settlement Fund amount will be paid to the Settlement Administrator as set out in Section IV.C below.
3. Cy Pres Award. In the event that the Settlement Fund, after payment of costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, is not fully depleted by Participating Claimants (i.e., if the number of Participating Claimants receiving a maximum amount for their subclass does not fully deplete the Settlement Fund), the amount left over will be donated to Kansas Legal Services within 30 days. Further, any un-cashed check(s) after six (6) months will be void and those funds will be held in trust by the Settlement Administrator for a period of two (2) years from the date of Final Approval during which the Participating Claimant of such funds can request payment from the Settlement Administrator. Any unclaimed amounts remaining in trust at the close of the two-year period following Final Approval shall be donated to Kansas Legal Services within 30 days of the close of that two-year period.
4. The consideration described in this section is contingent upon the rights of Defendants to terminate described in the “Blow Provision” set out in Section VIF below.
B. Costs of Settlement Administration. Defendants agree to pay up to $2,000 ($1,000.00 by CoreCivic and $1,000.00 by Securus) for postal charges for mailing out the Class Notice. All other Costs of Settlement Administration shall be paid from the award provided to Class Counsel referenced in III(A)(1) above.
C. Distribution of Settlement Payouts. All distribution of the Settlement Fund shall be performed by the Settlement Administrator, who shall mail checks to all Participating Claimants at their last known addresses within thirty (30) days of Final Court Approval. Payment of attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel shall be paid within ten (10) days of the deposit of the Settlement Fund amount. Checks shall be valid for six (6) months from the date of issuance. Any un-cashed check after six (6) months will be void and those funds will be held in trust by the Settlement Administrator for a period of two (2) years from the date of Final Approval during which the Participating Claimant of such funds can request payment from the Settlement Administrator. Any unclaimed amounts remaining in trust at the close of the two-year period following Final Approval shall be donated to Kansas Legal Services within 30 days of the close of that two-year period.
D. Identification of Settlement Class Members. The Parties will provide a list of the names, addresses, and if known, dates of birth and telephone numbers, of the Settlement Class Members to the Settlement Administrator within ten (10) business days of the Court
6

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 8 of 23
granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. This is the Preliminary Settlement Class Member List.
IV. SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES:
A. The Settlement Administrator shall establish the Settlement Fund. Defendants shall fund all cash payments due per Section III.A by paying the amounts into the established Settlement Fund at the fund institution chosen by the Settlement Administrator.
B. The Settlement Fund shall be applied to pay in full and in the following order:
1. any necessary taxes and tax expenses;
2. any award for attorneys’ fees, which will also include Class Counsel’s expenses and class representative incentive awards, made by the Court to Class Counsel pursuant to Section III.A.1 of this Settlement Agreement, said amount to also include all Costs of Settlement Administration, including, but not limited to, the costs of Class Notice and summary settlement notice, except that the first $2,000.00 of such expense shall be provided by Defendants separate from and in addition to the Settlement Fund;
3. cash payments distributed to Participating Claimants; and
4. cy pres donation to Kansas Legal Services pursuant to Section III.A.3 and III.C of this Settlement Agreement.
C. Defendants’ Funding of the Settlement Fund. Within ten (10) calendar days after the Effective Date, Defendants shall each deposit the amount of their contribution to the Settlement Fund as set out in Section III.A into the Settlement Fund account. As a precondition to Defendants’ funding of the Settlement Fund, the Settlement Administrator must provide Defendants with a W-9 for the Settlement Fund at least five (5) business days before the date on which Defendants are required to make the deposit.
D. In no circumstances shall CoreCivic’s contribution to the Settlement Fund exceed $1,100,000.00, and in no circumstances shall Securus’s contribution to the Settlement Fund exceed $350,000.00. Under this Settlement Agreement, the Parties agree that, other than the $2,000 contribution by Defendants for mailing Class Notice, this cash contribution to the Settlement Fund encompasses the full extent of Defendants’ monetary payment in full consideration for the Releases and covenants not to sue set forth in this Agreement. These payments, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and any other non-monetary obligations of and considerations due from Defendants set forth in this Agreement, will be in full satisfaction of all individual and class claims asserted in this Action.
E. Defendants and the Released Parties are not obligated (and will not be obligated) to compute, estimate, or pay any taxes on behalf of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Class Counsel,
7

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 9 of 23
any Settlement Class Member or Participating Claimant, the Settlement Administrator, or otherwise administer or support the implementation of the Settlement except as set forth herein.
F. All of the Costs of Settlement Administration, including, but not limited to, (1) postal and copying charges for mailing out the Class Notice (over and above $2,000.00 for mailing out Class Notice which will be provided by Defendants); (2) costs incurred in preparing the notice and the web site; and (3) fees paid to the Settlement Administrator for distributing and administering the benefits of the Settlement Agreement, shall be paid from the award made by the Court to Class Counsel pursuant to Section III.A.1.
G. Class Counsel will seek Court approval of an award in the total amount of $498,800, consisting of attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses and class representative incentive awards of $5,000 each for both named Plaintiffs, along with the costs associated with the independent class notice and all other Costs of Settlement Administration (over and above $2,000.00 for mailing out Class Notice which will be provided by Defendants). Defendants agree not to object to this request. The payment of this award, if approved by the Court or any lesser amount approved by the Court, shall be made to Class Counsel within ten (10) days of the money being deposited into the Settlement Fund.
V. NOTIFICATION TO CLASS MEMBERS:
The Settlement Administrator shall be responsible, subject to the Court approving the same, for the following notice program.
A. Initial Notice. The Initial Notice shall be in the form of a letter mailed by the Settlement Administrator to the last known mailing address for all individuals on the Preliminary Settlement Class Member List or as otherwise approved by the Court. Said mailing shall occur within forty-five (45) days of the initial approval of this Settlement by the Court, or within such other time as the Court may order. As noted in Section III.B, Defendants will pay up to $2,000 for postal charges for mailing out the Class Notice. All additional costs of preparing, mailing, and publishing Class Notice shall be paid from the award to Class Counsel. The Parties may jointly make minor changes to the Notice approved by the Court without further Court approval.
The Initial Notice will direct Settlement Class Members to a website containing a more detailed explanation of the Settlement terms and providing instructions regarding how Settlement Class Members may Opt-Out.
B. Website. The Settlement Administrator shall create and maintain a website providing a summary of the Settlement Agreement’s terms, as well as providing instructions to those Settlement Class Members as to how to Opt-Out of or object to the Settlement. The website will also provide information and instructions for Settlement Class Members who did not receive the Initial Notice described above.
8

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 10 of 23
C. Mailing Address. The Settlement Administrator will secure and maintain a Post Office Box or similar mailing address for the reception of Opt-Out forms or other correspondence related to the Settlement.
D. Reporting By Settlement Administrator. No later than ten (10) business days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the Settlement Administrator shall provide an affidavit to the Court, with a copy to counsel for the Parties, attesting that notice as set forth above in Section V.A was disseminated in a manner consistent with the terms of this Settlement Agreement and in a manner that satisfies due process.
VI. REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSIONS BY SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS:
A. The provisions of this section shall apply to any Opt-Out Notice. Any Settlement Class Member may submit an Opt-Out Notice by mailing or delivering such notice in writing to the Settlement Administrator. Any Opt-Out Notice must be postmarked no later than the Opt-Out Deadline set forth above.
B. Any Opt-Out Notice shall state the name, address, and telephone number of the person requesting exclusion. The Opt-Out Notice must also contain a clear statement communicating that such person elects to be excluded from the Settlement, does not wish to participate in the Settlement or receive any portion of the Settlement Payout, and elects to be excluded from any judgment entered pursuant to this Settlement.
C. Any Settlement Class Member who submits a timely Opt-Out Notice may not participate in the Settlement or an objection to the Settlement and shall be deemed to have waived any rights or benefits under this Settlement Agreement.
D. The Settlement Administrator shall report the names appearing on the Opt-Out List and in the Opt-Out Notices to the Court no less than ten (10) business days prior to the Final Approval Hearing.
E. The Settlement Administrator shall prepare the Final Settlement Class Member List and provide it to the Parties and the Court no less than ten (10) business days prior to the Final Approval Hearing.
F. Blow Provision. Defendants, either individually or collectively, shall, in their sole discretion, have the right to terminate this Restated Settlement Agreement if Opt-Out requests for exclusion were validly filed by 15% or more of Settlement Class Members or if the claims of Settlement Class Members who validly Opt-Out would total $300,000 or more using the maximum subclass amount described in Section 3AII above. If any Defendant elects to terminate the settlement under this provision, they must notify the Court and Class Counsel within seven calendar days after the date the Settlement Administrator reports the names appearing on the Opt-Out List and in the Opt-Out Notices to the Court. Termination of the settlement and this Restated Settlement Agreement under this provision shall result in the return to Defendants of any funds paid in connection with this Restated Settlement Agreement within 5 business days of any Defendant providing notice of termination to the Court. In addition,
9

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 11 of 23
termination under this provision shall cancel any releases or dismissals hereunder and no term or condition of this Restated Settlement Agreement, or any draft thereof, or of the discussion, negotiation, documentation, or other part or aspect of the Parties’ settlement discussions shall have any effect, nor shall any such matter be admissible in evidence for any purpose, or used for any purposes whatsoever in the Lawsuit and the Parties shall be restored to their prior rights and positions as if this Restated Settlement Agreement, and the prior Settlement Agreement & Release and its Amendment, had not been entered into.
VII. OBJECTIONS BY SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS:
A. Each Settlement Class Member wishing to object to the Settlement shall submit a timely written notice of his or her objection. Such notice shall state: (i) the objector’s full name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address, (ii) information identifying the objector as a Settlement Class Member, which shall be (a) a copy of the Initial Notice addressed to him or her, or (b) unequivocal documentary proof that that he or she is within the definition of the Settlement Class described in this Settlement Agreement; (iii) a written statement of all grounds for the objection accompanied by any legal support for the objection; (iv) the identity of all counsel representing the objector; (v) the identity of all counsel representing the objector who will appear at the Final Approval Hearing; (vi) a list of all persons who will be called to testify at the Final Approval Hearing in support of the objection; (vii) a statement confirming whether the objector intends to testify at the Final Approval Hearing; and (viii) the objector’s signature or the signature of the objector’s duly authorized attorney or other duly authorized representative (along with documentation setting forth such authorization). To be timely, written notice of an objection in appropriate form must be filed with the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Courtroom 427, 500 State Avenue, Suite 511, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, no later than forty-five (45) days after the first bulk mailing of the initial Class Notice, and served therewith upon both of the following: Co-Class Counsel Robert Horn and Joseph Kronawitter of Horn Aylward Bandy, LLC; counsel for Defendants, Thomas Kokoruda at Polsinelli PC, Kansas City, Missouri, and Ryan Harding at Husch Blackwell, Jefferson City, Missouri, all at the addresses reflected herein.
B. The agreed-upon procedures and requirements for filing objections in connection with the Final Approval Hearing are intended to ensure the efficient administration of justice and the orderly presentation of any Settlement Class Member’s objections to the Settlement Agreement, in accordance with such Settlement Class Member’s due process rights. The Preliminary Approval Order and Class Notice shall require all Settlement Class Members who have any objections to file such objection with the Clerk of the Court, and to serve by mail or hand delivery such objection upon Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel at the addresses set forth in the Class Notice, no later than the Objection Date. The Preliminary Approval Order shall further provide that objectors who fail to properly or timely file their objections with the Clerk of the Court, along with the required information and documentation set forth above, or to serve them as provided above, shall not be heard during the Final Approval Hearing, nor shall their objections be considered by the Court.
10

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 12 of 23
VIII. RELEASE, DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT, AND JURISDICTION OF COURT:
A. By this Settlement Agreement, Defendants CoreCivic and Securus and all other Released Parties are released from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of or relating to the monitoring, recording, and/or use of communications (including but not limited to telephone communications, in-person communications, and video communications) at the Leavenworth Detention Center that were, could have been, or should have been asserted against them by any Settlement Class Member who has not timely and properly opted out of the Settlement Agreement and any claims or causes of action arising out of or relating to any related facts, conduct, omissions, transactions, occurrences, or matters that were or could have been alleged in the Lawsuit. For the avoidance of doubt, the releases set out herein shall include, but not be limited to, releases of all such claims or causes of action that relate to the monitoring, recording, and/or use of communications that occurred up to and through August 8, 2019.
The parties also agree and understand that, as a condition of the Settlement, if approved by the Court, Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class Members (save those class members who OptOut) are waiving any and all claims for (1) actual damages; (2) punitive damages; (3) prejudgment interest; (4) any request for relief from CoreCivic or Securus for recording attorney communications at Leavenworth Detention Center.
B. The claims or causes of action that were or could have been asserted and could form the basis for an issue on appeal by Plaintiffs, Defendants, or the Settlement Class Members are hereby released.
C. The release contained herein does not affect the rights of Settlement Class Members who timely and properly Opt-Out of the Settlement Agreement, nor does it affect the rights of any non-Settlement Class Member.
D. The administration and consummation of the Settlement as embodied in this Settlement Agreement shall be under the authority of the Court. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to protect, preserve, and implement the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, the release contained herein. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction in order to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate in administering and implementing the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, orders enjoining Settlement Class Members from prosecuting claims that are released pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
E. Upon issuance of the Final Approval Order: (i) the Settlement Agreement shall be the exclusive remedy for any and all released claims of Settlement Class Members; (ii) CoreCivic, Securus, and all other Released Parties shall not be subject to liability or expense of any kind to any Settlement Class Members except as set forth herein; and (iii) Settlement Class Members shall be permanently barred from initiating, asserting, or prosecuting any and all released claims against the Released Parties in any court in the United States or any other tribunal. Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class Members who do not timely Opt-Out expressly agree that this Settlement Agreement will be and may be raised as a complete defense to, and will preclude and bar any, action or proceeding encompassed by the releases contained herein.
11

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 13 of 23
F. Upon issuance of the Final Approval Order, Plaintiffs shall file a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, for all claims asserted in the Lawsuit.
G. The Parties hereby agree and acknowledge that the provisions of the releases contained herein constitute an essential and material term of the Settlement Agreement and shall be included in the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice entered by the Court.
IX. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, AND COVENANTS:
A. Class Counsel, who are signatories hereof, represent and warrant that they have the authority, on behalf of Plaintiffs, to execute, deliver, and perform this Settlement Agreement and to consummate all of the transactions contemplated hereby. This Settlement Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by Class Counsel and Plaintiffs and constitutes their legal, valid, and binding obligation.
B. Defendants, through their respective undersigned counsel or representatives, represent and warrant that they have the authority to execute, deliver, and perform this Settlement Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. The execution, delivery, and performance by Defendants of this Settlement Agreement and the consummation by them of the actions contemplated hereby have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate actions on the part of Defendants and constitute their respective legal, valid, and binding obligation.
C. The rights and obligations of the Parties in this agreement, including the releases, will be binding on, and will be of benefit to, each of the Parties’ successors, heirs, and estates.
X. ADDITIONAL ISSUES:
A. No Admission of Liability. The Parties agree that this Settlement is made to resolve a doubtful and disputed claim and that by entering into this Settlement, Defendants are not making any admission that any of the allegations raised in the Lawsuit are true. This Settlement Agreement, and any exhibits and related documents hereto, are not, and shall not at any time be construed or deemed to be, or to evidence any admission against or concession by Defendants with respect to any wrongdoing, fault, unlawful act, or omission of any kind whatsoever, regardless of whether or not this Settlement Agreement results in entry of a Final Approval Order as contemplated herein. This provision shall survive the expiration or voiding of the Settlement Agreement.
The Parties agree that this Settlement is intended to encompass all claims or disputes regarding the matters described in the Lawsuit and that Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members could raise in relation thereto, and that upon Final Court Approval of the Settlement, Plaintiffs and those Settlement Class Members who do not Opt-Out of the Settlement shall be forever barred from raising any other claims against Defendants regarding the alleged monitoring, recording, or use of attorney communications at Leavenworth Detention Center or any other matter described in the Lawsuit or claims that could have been brought in the Lawsuit.
12

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 14 of 23
B. Voiding Of Settlement Agreement If Settlement Not Approved. This Settlement Agreement is entered into only for purposes of Settlement. In the event that the Final Approval Order is not entered, or if an appeal is taken therefrom and results in anything other than a complete affirmance of the Final Approval Order, then this Settlement Agreement, including any releases or dismissals hereunder, is canceled, and no term or condition of this Settlement Agreement, or any draft thereof, or of the discussion, negotiation, documentation, or other part or aspect of the Parties’ settlement discussions shall have any effect, nor shall any such matter be admissible in evidence for any purpose, or used for any purposes whatsoever in the Lawsuit and the Parties shall be restored to their prior rights positions as if the Restated Settlement Agreement, and the prior Settlement Agreement & Release and its Amendment, had not been entered into.
C. Headings and Subdivisions. The headings of the sections and paragraphs of this Settlement Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not be deemed to constitute part of this Settlement Agreement or to affect its construction.
D. Agreement Confidential Until Motion for Approval. The Parties and their counsel agree to keep the existence and contents of this Settlement Agreement confidential until the date on which the Motion for Approval is filed; provided, however, that this section shall not prevent Defendants from disclosing such information, prior to the date on which the Motion for Approval is filed, to state and federal agencies, or its own independent accountants, actuaries, advisors, financial analysts, insurers, potential indemnitors, or attorneys, nor shall it prevent the Parties and their counsel from disclosing such information to Persons or entities (such as experts, courts, co-counsel, and/or administrators) to whom the Parties agree disclosure must be made in order to effectuate the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement.
E. Rule 408 Applicability. The Parties expressly acknowledge and agree that this Settlement Agreement, along with all related drafts, motions, pleadings, conversations, negotiations, and correspondence, constitute an offer of compromise and a compromise within the meaning of the most protective of the following: Federal Rule of Evidence 408, or any agreement of the Parties. In no event shall this Settlement Agreement, any of its provisions or any negotiations, statements, or court proceedings relating to its provisions in any way be construed as, offered as, received as, used as, or deemed to be evidence of any kind in the Action, any other action, or in any judicial, administrative, regulatory, or other proceeding, except in a proceeding to enforce this Settlement Agreement or the rights of the Parties or their counsel. Without limiting the foregoing, neither this Settlement Agreement nor any related negotiations, statements, or court proceedings shall be construed as, offered as, received as, used as, or deemed to be evidence or an admission or concession of any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of any Person or entity, including, but not limited to, the Released Parties, Plaintiffs, or the Settlement Class or as a waiver by the Released Parties, Plaintiffs, or the Settlement Class of any applicable privileges, claims, or defenses.
F. Amendment of Agreement. This Settlement Agreement, including any exhibits attached hereto, may not be modified or amended except in writing signed by all of the Parties.
13

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 15 of 23
G. Execution in Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
H. Applicable Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Kansas, without giving effect to any choice or conflict of law provision, or rule that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction.
I. Apportionment of Costs. Except as otherwise provided in this Settlement Agreement, each party to this Settlement Agreement shall bear his, her, or its own costs related to the Lawsuit.
J. Extensions of Time. The Parties to this Settlement Agreement reserve the right, by agreement and subject to the Court’s approval, to grant any reasonable extensions of time that might be necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement.
K. Required Notice. All applications for Court approval or Court orders required under this Settlement Agreement shall be made on notice to Plaintiffs and Defendants.
L. Arms-Length Negotiation. The determination of the terms of, and the drafting of, this Settlement Agreement, including any exhibits, has been by mutual agreement after negotiation, with consideration by and participation of all Parties and their counsel. Since this Settlement Agreement was drafted with the participation of all Parties and their counsel, the presumption that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafter does not apply. Each of the Parties was represented by competent and effective counsel throughout the course of settlement negotiations and in the drafting and execution of this Settlement Agreement, and there was no disparity in bargaining power among the Parties to this Settlement Agreement.
M. Integrated Agreement. Any of the Exhibits of this Settlement Agreement are material and integral parts hereof, and are fully incorporated herein by reference. This Settlement Agreement and any Exhibits hereto constitute the entire, fully integrated agreement among the Parties and cancel and supersede all prior written and unwritten agreements and understandings pertaining to the Settlement of the Lawsuit.
N. Notice to Parties. All notices to the Parties or their counsel required by this Settlement Agreement shall be made in writing and communicated by fax or electronic mail and by United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the following addresses:
If to Plaintiffs or Class Counsel:
Robert Horn Joseph Kronawitter Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64108
14

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 16 of 23
rhorn@hab-law.com jak@hab-law.com If to CoreCivic, its Counsel: Thomas Kokoruda Amy D. Fitts Polsinelli PC 900 W. 48th Place Ste 900 Kansas City, MO 64112 tkokoruda@polsinelli.com afitts@polsinelli.com If to Securus, its Counsel: Ryan Harding Husch Blackwell 235 East High Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ryan.harding@huschblackwell.com Phone: 816-218-1255 Fax: 816-222-0425
15

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 17 of 23

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Class Counsel has executed this Settlement Agreement as of the date(s) indicated below.

Executed this

day of ____________________________, 2019.

Plaintiffs:

___________________________________ Ashley Huff

___________________________________ Gregory Rapp

Class Counsel:

Robert Horn

Joseph Kronawitter
____________________________________ Brian Timothy Meyers

16

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 18 of 23

THE STATE OF

)

)ss.

COUNTY OF

)

On this date personally appeared Ashley Huff, personally known to me to be the person who executed the foregoing Release and Settlement Agreement, after being first duly sworn upon oath, and acknowledging execution of the same as his/her voluntary act for the uses and purposes therein set forth, with full knowledge of the content and effect.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this ____ day of __________________, 2019.

My Commission Expires ____________________

Notary Public

17

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 19 of 23

THE STATE OF

)

)ss.

COUNTY OF

)

On this date personally appeared Gregory Rapp, personally known to me to be the person who executed the foregoing Release and Settlement Agreement, after being first duly sworn upon oath, and acknowledging execution of the same as his/her voluntary act for the uses and purposes therein set forth, with full knowledge of the content and effect.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this ____ day of __________________, 2019.

My Commission Expires ____________________

Notary Public

18

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 20 of 23

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Counsel for CoreCivic, Inc., has executed this Settlement Agreement as of the date(s) indicated below.

Executed this

day of ___________________, 2019.

Counsel for CoreCivic, Inc.:

Thomas Kokoruda

CoreCivic, Inc.
By: Authorized Representative Printed Name: _____________________________ Title: _____________________________________ Date: _____________________________________

19

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 21 of 23

STATE OF

)

) ss

COUNTY OF

)

Now on this _____ day of _________________________, 2019, before me appeared __________________________________, who is known or identified to me to be the same person who read and executed the above and foregoing Settlement Agreement and who acknowledged the execution of the same on behalf of CoreCivic, Inc., as its free and voluntary act and deed with full knowledge of its contents, as an authorized representative of that company.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand and affixed my seal on the day and year indicated above.

My Commission Expires:

Notary Public

20

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 22 of 23

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Counsel for Securus Technologies, Inc., has executed this Settlement Agreement as of the date(s) indicated below.

Executed this

day of _______________________________, 2019.

Counsel for Securus Technologies, Inc.:

Ryan Harding

Securus Technologies, Inc.
By: Authorized Representative Printed Name: _____________________________ Title: _____________________________________ Date: _____________________________________

21

Case 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO Document 140-2 Filed 08/23/19 Page 23 of 23

STATE OF

)

) ss

COUNTY OF

)

Now on this _____ day of _______________________________, 2019, before me appeared __________________________________, who is known or identified to me to be the same person who read and executed the above and foregoing Settlement Agreement and who acknowledged the execution of the same on behalf of Securus Technologies, Inc., as its free and voluntary act and deed with full knowledge of its contents, as an authorized representative of that company.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand and affixed my seal on the day and year indicated above.

My Commission Expires:

Notary Public

22