1

2

3

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

8 DEANNA L. FREITAG,

9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
12 Defendants.
13

NO. C00-2278 TEH ORDER ADOPTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S APRIL 26, 2012 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION RE: ATTORNEYS’ FEES

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

14

15

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ objections to the

16 April 26, 2012 report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on the

17 motion for attorneys’ fees and costs filed by Plaintiff on March 12, 2012. After carefully

18 reviewing the motion papers, Judge Zimmerman’s report and recommendation, and the

19 parties’ objections, the Court now ADOPTS IN PART Judge Zimmerman’s report and

20 recommendation as discussed below. Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED IN

21 PART and DENIED IN PART.

22

23 BACKGROUND

24

Attorneys’ fees and costs for monitoring the injunction in this case are governed by a

25 procedure stipulated to by the parties on June 29, 2009, and entered as an order of this Court

26 on July 2, 2009. On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify that order to require

27 Defendants to submit payment within thirty days of reaching agreement on any amount due.

28 Plaintiff’s motion also sought an award of three disputed sets of fees from 2011: (1) $315.00

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 from the first quarter of 2011; (2) $1883.27 from the third quarter of 2011; and (3) $5010.40

2 as a late sanction for the payment received on November 9, 2011, but due on November 7,

3 2011, pursuant to the Court’s October 6, 2011 order.

4

The Court referred the motion to Judge Zimmerman, who issued his report and

5 recommendation on April 26, 2012. Judge Zimmerman recommended that Plaintiff’s

6 requested fees be granted in their entirety, but that Plaintiff’s request for a thirty-day

7 expedited payment schedule be denied. Both parties filed timely objections, which the Court

8 considers in turn below.

9

10 DISCUSSION

11 I. Defendants’ Request to Terminate, Modify, or Stay Monitoring

12

In their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants requested that the injunctive

13 relief be terminated or, at minimum, that the monitoring process be modified retroactive to

14 January 1, 2012, to cap attorneys’ fees. Judge Zimmerman correctly ruled that such a motion

15 was outside the scope of the referral. Defendants finally appear to understand, as this Court

16 has previously explained, that they must file a regularly noticed motion if they seek to

17 terminate injunctive relief. Defendants filed such a motion on May 25, 2012, and noticed it

18 for hearing on July 2, 2012. That motion is the proper procedural mechanism by which to

19 raise termination of the injunction and modification of the monitoring process, and the Court

20 makes no ruling on those issues here.

21

Additionally, Defendants raised in their objections a request for an immediate stay of

22 the monitoring process. This request is unsupported by any legal argument and, accordingly,

23 is denied.

24

25 II. $315.00 for First Quarter of 2011

26

As correctly found by Judge Zimmerman, Defendants admit that they agreed to pay

27 the additional $315.00 claimed by Plaintiff for the first quarter of 2011, but that payment was

28 never issued “for unknown reasons.” Opp’n at 4-5. Correspondence between counsel

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 indicates that Defendants agreed to pay this amount on May 16, 2011. May 16, 2011 Letter

2 from Vincent Scally to Jeshawna Harrell at 1 (Ex. B to Price Decl.). Although Plaintiff

3 apparently did not raise this issue again until February 2012, the Court agrees with Judge

4 Zimmerman that “Plaintiff should not be held accountable for Defendants’ oversight” in

5 failing to process payment. Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) at 3. Defendants shall pay

6 Plaintiff an additional $315.00 for work performed during the first quarter of 2011.

7

8 III. $1883.27 for Third Quarter of 2011

9

Judge Zimmerman recommended that Plaintiff be awarded $17,041.50 for the third

10 quarter of 2011. Defendants argue that they settled fees for this quarter for $15,158.23,

11 leaving a difference of $1883.27 in currently disputed fees. The exhibits submitted by the

12 parties reveal the following history: On November 14, 2011, Defendants agreed to request a

13 check for $1882.52 for undisputed third quarter fees. Nov. 14, 2011 Letter from Pamela

14 Price to Vincent Scally & Lyn Harlan at 1 (Ex. C to Price Decl.); see also Nov. 15, 2011

15 Letter from Lyn Harlan to Pamela Price at 1 (Ex. 4-11 to Harlan Decl.) (characterizing this

16 amount as “unobjectionable monitoring fees”). The parties do not appear to dispute that

17 Defendants miscalculated this amount, which should have been $1883.27. See Jan. 5, 2012

18 Letter from Pamela Price to Vincent Scally & Lyn Harlan at 4 n.1 (Ex. 4-13 to Harlan Decl.).

19 On January 5, 2012, Plaintiff demanded “$16,842.48 as payment in full for the third quarter

20 of 2011 disputed fees.” Id. at 1 (emphasis added). This amount represented the $18,725.75

21 reflected in counsel’s billing statements, less the $1883.27 that Defendants had already

22 agreed to pay. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff then stated her “willing[ness] to accept $15,158.23 (a

23 10% reduction) as payment in full for the third quarter disputed fees.” Id. at 5 (emphasis

24 added). On January 26, 2012, Defendants “accept[ed] [Plaintiff’s] demand,” including

25 $15,158.23 for the third quarter of 2011. Jan. 26, 2012 letter from Lyn Harlan to Pamela

26 Price (Ex. D to Price Decl.).

27

Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, it is clear that Plaintiff was offering to settle the

28 disputed fees – $16,842.48 – and not the total $18,725.75 in requested fees, for $15,158.23,

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 and Defendants accepted that offer. Accordingly, for the third quarter of 2011, Defendants

2 shall pay a total of $15,158.23 plus $1883.27, or $17,041.50.

3

4 IV. $5010.40 as Sanction for Late Payment

5

On September 7, 2011, this Court imposed a 25% sanction on Plaintiff’s requested

6 fees for the fourth quarter of 2008, the first and second quarters of 2009, and the first and

7 third quarters of 2010. The July 2, 2009 order provides that Plaintiff shall submit requests

8 for payment within ten business days following the end of each quarter. As the Court

9 explained in imposing the sanction:

10

Of course, the agreement and order were not in place until shortly

11

after the end of the second quarter of 2009, and the deadline for Plaintiff to submit billing statements for prior quarters is not

12

clear. One reasonable interpretation would be to give Plaintiff ten business days from the date of the entry of the Court’s order

13

in which to submit earlier fee requests to Defendants, but the Court need not decide that question. Plaintiff did not submit her

14

requests for the last quarter of 2008 and the first and second quarters of 2009 until March 22, 2010 – more than eight months

15

after the Court entered the order adopting the parties’ agreedupon procedure. This is extremely untimely under any

16

reasonable interpretation, and the Court finds the 25% sanction recommended by Judge Zimmerman to be appropriate for these

17

quarters.

18 Sept. 7, 2011 Order at 8. As to the first and third quarters of 2010, Plaintiff submitted

19 requests one and two business days late, respectively. However, Plaintiff took four months

20 to respond to Defendants’ objections to the requested fees for the first quarter of 2010, and

21 one month to respond to Defendants’ objections as to the third quarter of 2010, despite the

22 July 2, 2009 order’s provision that the meet-and-confer process be completed within ten

23 business days. The Court found a 25% sanction to be appropriate as to these quarters in part

24 because of “Plaintiff’s prior record of failing to follow deadlines in this case.” Id. at 9.

25

On October 6, 2011, the Court ordered Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s counsel

26 $20,041.97 no later than November 7, 2011. Plaintiff did not receive payment until two days

27 later, on November 9, 2011. Because the Court previously sanctioned Plaintiff by 25% for

28 late requests for payment, Plaintiff submitted an invoice to Defendants for $5010.40, which

4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 is approximately 25% of the amount due. Judge Zimmerman recommended that the

2 requested amount be granted: “Prior orders sanctioning Plaintiff for failing to comply with

3 court-ordered deadlines imposed similar sanctions, and Defendants failed to provide a

4 legitimate rationale for why similar sanctions should not apply to their failure to comply with

5 the court’s orders.” R&R at 4.

6

This Court disagrees. Unlike Plaintiff, who repeatedly violated the procedures set

7 forth in the July 2, 2009 order multiple times and by several weeks and even months,

8 Defendants missed a single deadline by two days. These circumstances are vastly different,

9 and the Court does not find a similar sanction to be appropriate.

10

11 V. Plaintiff’s Request for Thirty-Day Expedited Schedule

12

Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff $2925.00 for the second quarter of 2011,

13 $15,158.23 for the third quarter of 2011, and $8593.31 for the fourth quarter of 2011, for a

14 total of $26,676.54. The parties agree that Defendants initiated payment for these amounts

15 on January 26, 2012, for the second and third quarters, and on January 31, 2012, for the

16 fourth quarter. As of May 10, 2012, Plaintiff had not yet received payment. Defendants

17 have advised Plaintiff that payment may “take up to 180 days,” so Plaintiff “can expect to

18 receive these payments by approximately July 31, 2012.” Feb. 1, 2012 Letter from Lyn

19 Harlan to Pamela Price at 1 (Ex. E to Price Decl.). Plaintiff requested an order from the

20 Court to modify the July 2, 2009 order to specify that Defendants shall pay any agreed fees

21 and costs within thirty days.

22

Judge Zimmerman recommended denying Plaintiff’s request:

23

Defendants provided evidence that the length of their payment

process depends greatly on the number of payment requests in the

24

queue and varies in length due to staff shortages and payment

protocols imposed by the State. Plaintiff provided no evidence

25

that Defendants are discriminating against her or otherwise

delaying her payments in a manner inconsistent with other

26

individuals who are also awaiting payments. There is therefore

insufficient evidence to justify imposing an expedited payment

27

schedule.

28

5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 R&R at 4. Upon its review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Zimmerman and will

2 not order an expedited payment schedule for future requests for fees and costs in this case.

3 However, to minimize the delay in receiving funds to which Defendants agreed to pay

4 Plaintiff but have to date failed to initiate payment, the Court will require expedited payment

5 of the fees at issue in this order for the first and third quarters of 2011.

6

At Plaintiff’s option, she may pay the $75 fee to expedite processing if she wishes to

7 obtain payment on any future request for attorneys’ fees and costs within four to six weeks.

8 See Sobel Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiff may object that she should not have to bear the burden of

9 this expense, but the Court does not order her to do so; instead, it is her option if she finds

10 that waiting for payment via the normal course of business would pose a hardship. Plaintiff

11 cannot complain that payment of the fee itself would cause a hardship because she

12 characterized the expedited processing fee as “quite de minimis per year.” May 10, 2012

13 Mot. for Relief at 4.

14

15 CONCLUSION

16

As discussed above, Judge Zimmerman’s April 26, 2012 Report and Recommendation

17 is ADOPTED IN PART, and Plaintiff’s March 12, 2012 motion for attorneys’ fees and costs

18 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court does not order expedited

19 payment of the $26,676.54 for which Defendants have already initiated payment, and the

20 Court denies Plaintiff’s request for $5010.40 as a sanction for a payment that was received

21 two days beyond the Court-ordered deadline.

22

However, Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiff $315.00 for the first quarter of 2011

23 and $1883.27 for the third quarter of 2011, for a total of $2198.27, no later than July 13,

24 2012. Late payment of this amount shall be subject to a 1% daily penalty, to be calculated on

25 the original amount due and unpaid; penalties shall not compounded.

26

The Court feels compelled to note that, yet again, the parties have ignored the Court’s

27 repeated reminders that “[a] request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major

28 litigation.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The disputes at issue in this

6

1 motion, as well as in previous ones, appear to be largely the result of personal animosity 2 between counsel, and the Court will no longer expend its resources or those of a magistrate 3 judge on resolving such disputes. Consequently, if the Court denies Defendants’ pending

4 motion to terminate the injunction, thereby continuing Plaintiff’s right to recover monitoring

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

5 fees, the Court will at that time also appoint a special master, whose fees shall be paid by the

6 parties, to resolve all future disputes over attorneys’ fees and costs that counsel cannot

7 resolve independently.

8

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

11 Dated: 06/01/12 12

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21 22 23 24 25

26

27 28

7

 
 1

2

3

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

8 DEANNA L. FREITAG,

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
12 Defendants.
13

NO. C00-2278 TEH ORDER CLOSING CASE

14

15

With judgment having been entered and affirmed on appeal following remand, and the

16 Court finding no reason to maintain this case as an open file, the Clerk is instructed to close

17 the file. This administrative closure does not affect the injunctive relief that has been ordered

18 by the Court, nor does it affect the Court’s July 2, 2009 order concerning such relief.

19

20 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

22 Dated: 03/09/10 23

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

24

25

26

27

28

 
 1 PAMELA Y. PRICE, ESQ. (SBN. 107713) CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON (SBN 34111)

PRICE AND ASSOCIATES

PO Box 713

2 A Professional law Corporation

Twain Harte, CA 95383

1611 Telegraph Avenue, Ste. 1450

Telephone: (209) 586-2370

3 Oakland, CA 94612

Facsimile: (209) 729-5800

Telephone: (510) 452-0292

E-mail: csralston@gmail.com

4 Facsimile: (510) 452-5625

E-mail: pypesq@aol.com

5

JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ. (SBN 69888)

6 Law Offices of John L. Burris

7677 Oakport Street, suite 1120

7 Oakland, CA 94621

Telephone: (510) 839-5200

8 Facsimile: (510) 839-3882

E-mail: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com

9 Attorneys for Plaintiff

10 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. Attorney General of the State of California
11 VINCENT J. SCALLY, JR. (SBN 058223) Supervising Deputy Attorney General
12 KATHRYN ALLEN (SBN 137685) Deputy Attorney General
13 LYN HARLAN (SBN 1714710) Deputy Attorney General
14 1300 I Street, Suite 125, Sacramento CA 95814 (delivery) P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento CA 94244-2550 (mail)
15 Telephone: 916-324-5468 Telefax: 916-324-5567
16 E-Mail: Vincent.Scally@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants
17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19

20 DEANNA L. FREITAG

21

Plaintiff,

22 v.

23

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

CASE NO. C-00-2278 TEH
STIPULATION PURSUANT TO FEES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

24

Defendants.

HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON

25

26

The parties, by undersigned counsel, submit this Stipulation pursuant to the Settlement

27 Agreement regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees filed September 15, 2008.

28

-1-

Stipulation Pursuant to Fees Settlement Agreement: Freitag v. Ayers: C-03-2278 TEH

1. The payment provided for in the Settlement Agreement entered into on or about

1 August 3, 2009, was received by plaintiff’s counsel on September 29, 2009.

2

2. Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of the Settlement Agreement, plaintiff agreed to dismiss the

3 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees that was filed on September 15, 2008, that was the subject of the

4 Settlement Agreement.

5

3. Further, in light of the Order of the Court dated August 12, 2009, the parties agree

6 that the parties’ objections to Judge Bernard Zimmerman’s Report and Recommendation entered

7 on December 8, 2008, have been resolved.

8

WHEREFORE, the parties stipulate to the dismissal of the September 15, 2008, Motion

9 for Attorneys’ fees and to the dismissal of the parties’ respective objections to Judge

10 Zimmerman’s Report and Recommendation.

11

12

Respectfully submitted,

13 DATED: October 6, 2009
14 15 16

PRICE AND ASSOCIATES
______________/s/______________________ PAMELA Y. PRICE, Attorney for Plaintiff DEANNA L. FREITAG

17 ____________/s/____________________________

18

JOHN L. BURRIS

Attorney for Plaintiff DEANNA L. FREITAG

19

20

/s/

CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON, Attorney for

21

Plaintiff DEANNA L. FREITAG

22

23 DATED: October 6, 2009
24

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. Attorney General of the State of California

25 /s/

26

VINCENT J. SCALLY, JR.

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

27 KATHRYN ALLEN

28

Deputy Attorney General

-2Stipulation Pursuant to Fees Settlement Agreement: Freitag v. Ayers: C-03-2278 TEH

LYN HARLAN Deputy Attorney General

1 Attorneys for Defendants

2

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.

3

4 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:
5 6 Dated:________1_0_/0_7_______, 2009

UNITED S ALIFORNIA

OURT NORTH

7 8

_H_O__N_._T_H_T_EA_TL__ET_SO__DN_IE_S_.T_H_RE_I_NC_D_T_EC_R_S__O_N_______

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

12

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

13

14

ERN DISTRICT OF C

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3Stipulation Pursuant to Fees Settlement Agreement: Freitag v. Ayers: C-03-2278 TEH

 
 Case3:00-cv-02278-TEH Document640 Filed04/26/12 Page1 of 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DEANNA L. FREITAG

)

)

12

)

No. C00-2278 TEH (BZ)

Plaintiff(s),

)

13

)

v.

)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON

14

)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

JULY 2, 2009 ORDER AND AWARD

15 CORRECTIONS, et. al.,

)

OF REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’

)

FEES

16

)

Defendant(s).

)

17

)

)

18

Judge Henderson has referred to me for a report and

19

recommendation Plaintiff’s motion to modify the July 2, 2009

20

order and award of reasonable attorneys’ fees (Docket No.

21

580).1

22

23

1

On June 29, 2009, Judge Henderson ordered that

Plaintiff was entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees 24 for monitoring the injunction pursuant to the procedure agreed

upon by the parties in the Joint Status Statement. (Docket 25 Nos. 579, 580.) The injunction has been in place since a jury

found Defendants liable for sexual harassment, wrongful 26 termination, and retaliation. The July 2, 2009 order states,

in relevant part: “As long as the injunction remains in 27 place unmodified, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to recover

reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to the procedure 28 agreed upon by the parties and set forth on page 2 of

1

Case3:00-cv-02278-TEH Document640 Filed04/26/12 Page2 of 5

1

Plaintiff contends that there are five outstanding

2 payments for attorneys’ fees, including one late payment fee:

3 (1) $315.00 for fees associated with monitoring the injunction

4 during the first quarter of 2011; (2) $2,925.00 for fees

5 associated with monitoring the injunction during the second

6 quarter of 2011; (3) $17,041.50 for fees associated with

7 monitoring the injunction during the third quarter of 20112;

8 (4) $8,593.31 for fees associated with monitoring the

9 injunction during the fourth quarter of 2011; and (5)

10 $5,010.40 as a late payment for fees paid in November 2011

11 pursuant to an order issued by Judge Henderson on October 6,

12 2011 (Docket No. 623). Thus, Plaintiff requests $33,885.21 in

13 total.

14

By her motion, Plaintiff seeks both to collect the

15 amounts allegedly due and outstanding, and to modify the July

16 2, 2009 order to require Defendants to make all future

17 payments to plaintiff within thirty days. Defendants contend

18 that Plaintiff’s request for an expedited payment schedule is

19 not warranted, and that her request for $5,010.40 as a penalty

20 is not justified because the November 2011 payment was only

21 two days late. Defendants also challenge the allegedly

22 outstanding fees from the first and third quarters of 2011, as

23 explained below. Finally, Defendants request that the court

24 modify the monitoring process and dissolve the injunction

25

their June 29, 2009 joint statement.” 26

2

Plaintiff contends that, of this amount, Defendants

27 initially agreed to pay $1,883.27, and then later agreed to

pay an additional $15,158.23 for fees that were initially 28 disputed.

2

Case3:00-cv-02278-TEH Document640 Filed04/26/12 Page3 of 5

1 because it is no longer necessary.

2

At the outset, I note that Judge Henderson has not

3 referred to me the issue of whether it is proper to dissolve

4 the injunction and monitoring processes in this case.

5 Accordingly, this report and recommendation does not address

6 that issue.

7

With respect to the first quarter fees sought by

8 Plaintiff in the amount of $315.00, I recommend that Plaintiff

9 be awarded this sum. While Defendants contend that Plaintiff

10 waited until February 2012 to seek this amount and that this

11 sum should therefore be deemed waived, Defendants admit that

12 they “agreed this fee was undisputed” and that for “unknown

13 reasons” it was never paid. (Def.’s Opp. p. 4.) Plaintiff

14 should not be held accountable for Defendants’ oversight.

15

With respect to the third quarter fees sought by

16 Plaintiff, Defendants contend that they are not liable to

17 Plaintiff for $1,883.27 of the $17,041.50 sought. This is

18 because, according to Defendants, the parties settled the

19 disputed third quarter fees for $15,158.23. I have reviewed

20 the exhibits submitted by both parties and recommend that

21 Plaintiff be awarded the full sum of $17,041.50. Plaintiff is

22 correct that the letters submitted by both parties evidence

23 that Plaintiff agreed to Defendants’ proposal to pay

24 $15,158.23 for disputed fees. The additional $1,882.52 sought

25 by Plaintiff is for undisputed fees, which Defendants

26 previously agreed to pay and which Judge Henderson in fact

27 ordered Defendants to pay on October 31, 2011.

28

With respect to the $5,010.40 sought by Plaintiff as a

3

Case3:00-cv-02278-TEH Document640 Filed04/26/12 Page4 of 5

1 penalty for fees paid by Defendants that were two days late, I

2 recommend that this amount be awarded. The $5,010.40 amount

3 sought by Plaintiff represents 25% of the $20,041.97 in fees

4 that Defendants were ordered to pay within thirty days

5 pursuant to Judge Henderson’s October 6, 2011 order (Docket

6 No. 623). By the terms of that order, Defendants had until

7 November 7, 2011 to provide payment to plaintiff, and the

8 payment was not tendered until November 9, 2011. Prior orders

9 sanctioning Plaintiff for failing to comply with court-ordered

10 deadlines imposed similar sanctions, and Defendants failed to

11 provide a legitimate rationale for why similar sanctions

12 should not apply to their failure to comply with the court’s

13 orders.

14

Finally, I recommend that Plaintiff’s request for a 30-

15 day expedited payment schedule be denied. Defendants provided

16 evidence that the length of their payment process depends

17 greatly on the number of payment requests in the queue and

18 varies in length due to staff shortages and payment protocols

19 imposed by the State. Plaintiff provided no evidence that

20 Defendants are discriminating against her or otherwise

21 delaying her payments in a manner inconsistent with other

22 individuals who are also awaiting payments. There is

23 therefore insufficient evidence to justify imposing an

24 expedited payment schedule.

25

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend Plaintiff be

26 awarded the $33,885.21 as requested and that Plaintiff’s

27 request to impose an expedited payment schedule be denied.

28 Defendants’ requests, contained in their opposition, to

4

Case3:00-cv-02278-TEH Document640 Filed04/26/12 Page5 of 5

1 terminate the injunction and to modify the monitorship should

2 be addressed to Judge Henderson.3

3

4 Dated: April 26, 2012

5

Bernard Zimmerman

6

United States Magistrate Judge

7
G:\BZALL\-REFS\FREITAG\REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO MODIFY MOTION FOR ATTYS
8 FEES.wpd

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3

Plaintiff’s objections to the supplemental opposition

28 filed by Defendants are SUSTAINED.

5

 
 Freitag v. California Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 1670307 United States District Court,
N.D. California.
Deanna L. FREITAG, Plaintiff, v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
No. C00-2278 TEH. | June 6, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Pamela Y. Price, Price & Associates A Professional Law Corporation, John L. Burris, Law Offices of John L. Burris, Oakland, CA, Charles Stephen Ralston, Attorney at Law, Berkeley, CA, for Plaintiff.
Jacob A. Appelsmith, Attorney General‘s Office, Sacramento, CA, Lyn Harlan, Attorney General’s Office, Oakland, CA, Kathryn Allen, Richard Lee Manford, Vincent John Scally, Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION RE: REMANDED ISSUES
THELTON E. HENDERSON, United States District Court Judge.
*1 This matter came before the Court on Monday, June 4, 2007, on Plaintiff Deanna Freitag’s motion regarding the issues remanded to this Court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After carefully reviewing the parties’ written and oral arguments, the record, and relevant law, the Court now GRANTS Freitag’s motion for the reasons discussed below.
BACKGROUND On April 2, 2003, a jury found that Defendant California Department of Corrections (“CDC”), now the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), violated Freitag’s rights under Title VII and that Defendants Robert J. Ayers, Jr., Teresa Schwartz, and Augustine Lopez retaliated against Freitag in violation of her First Amendment rights. Judgment was entered on May 5, 2003, and Freitag subsequently brought a motion to amend the judgment to include permanent injunctive relief. On August 18, 2003, this Court granted in part and

denied in part Freitag’s motion and entered the following permanent injunction:
The California Department of Corrections, its agents, officers, successors in office, employees and all persons acting in concert or participating with the department are permanently enjoined from engaging in any employment practices, or taking any other personnel action, for the purpose or with the effect of maintaining a sexually hostile work environment at Pelican Bay State Prison, or otherwise discriminating against any Pelican Bay State Prison employee on the basis of sex. The California Department of Corrections, its agents, officers, successors in office, employees and all persons acting in concert or participating with the department are further enjoined from engaging in any employment practices, or taking any other personnel action, for the purpose or with the effect of retaliating against any Pelican Bay State Prison employee for complaining about, or otherwise opposing, practices made unlawful by Title VII.
Aug. 18, 2003 Order Granting in Part & Denying in Part Pl.’s Mot. to Am. J. to Include Perm. Inj. Relief at 8. The Court also referred this case to Special Master John Hagar and the Madrid v. Gomez (now Madrid v. Tilton ) team for “development of a remedial plan to address the problem of inmate exhibitionist masturbation” at Pelican Bay State Prison. Id. at 9-10. On July 16, 2004, the Court adopted the Special Master’s report and recommendations with minor modifications and, on October 18, 2004, denied Freitag’s request for additional, more specific injunctive relief to prohibit retaliation.
Defendants timely appealed the jury’s verdict and the permanent injunction entered by the Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding in part on September 13, 2006, and made minor amendments to that decision on November 3, 2006. Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 918 (2007). The appellate court affirmed the jury’s verdict on Freitag’s Title VII claims and also affirmed this Court’s grant of injunctive relief. Id. at 548. The court reversed the First Amendment
1

Freitag v. California Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

retaliation judgment against Defendant Lopez based on insufficiency of the evidence. Id. at 543 n. 8.
*2 The Ninth Circuit remanded the remainder of Freitag’s First Amendment claims to this Court “due to an intervening Supreme Court decision” affecting the types of speech by a public employee that are protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 548. This Court instructed the jury that the following six items were examples of protected speech:
(a) Reporting sexually hostile inmate conduct to agents of the California Department of Corrections, either formally or informally;
(b) Documenting Pelican Bay State Prison’s responses or failures to respond to Plaintiff’s reports of sexually hostile inmate conduct;
(c) Informing Cal Terhune, Director of the California Department of Corrections, of either sexually hostile conduct or of Pelican Bay State Prison’s responses or failures to respond;
(d) Informing State Senator Richard Polanco either of sexually hostile inmate conduct or of Pelican Bay State Prison’s responses or failures to respond;
(e) Reporting either the sexually hostile conduct or Pelican Bay State Prison’s responses or failures to respond to the Office of the Inspector General; or
(f) Cooperation with the investigation conducted by the Office of the Inspector General.
Id. at 544. The Ninth Circuit considered the validity of this instruction in light of the intervening Supreme Court decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, --- U.S. ----, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). The court held that the last three examples listed in the jury instruction were “communications .... protected under the First Amendment” because Freitag was acting as a citizen and not an employee when she made the communications and because Freitag’s complaints addressed a matter of public concern. Freitag, 468 F.3d at 545-46. However, the court also held that, “[t]o the extent that the jury may have considered internal forms prepared by Freitag, it is clear that, under Ceballos, such activity is not constitutionally protected. For purposes of First Amendment analysis, Freitag submitted those reports pursuant to her official duties as a correctional officer and thus not in her capacity as a citizen.” Id. at 546. The court remanded to this Court the issue of “[w]hether Freitag’s April 15, 1999 letter to Terhune is protected under the First Amendment” because the court was “unsure whether prison guards are expected to air complaints regarding conditions in their prisons all the way up to the Director of the CDCR at the state capitol in Sacramento.” Id. The court added that it was

“not aware, for example, what the union contract provides with respect to the persons to whom such grievances may or must be presented.” Id.
The Ninth Circuit also remanded to this Court the issue of “whether the jury instruction, which included as examples of protected speech either two or three items of unprotected speech, was more probably than not harmless.” Id. Because the court remanded Freitag’s § 1983 First Amendment claim, it also remanded “the jury’s damages award with instructions to reconsider, if necessary [after addressing the harmless error question], whether the $600,000 award of compensatory damages remains valid,” as well as remanding “the issue of attorneys’ fees for reconsideration, if necessary.” Id. at 547.
*3 On remand, the Court referred this case back to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James for a further mandatory settlement conference. Judge James conducted a settlement conference on March 16, 2007. The case did not settle, and this motion followed. The Court now discusses in turn below each issue raised by Freitag’s motion.
DISCUSSION
I. Whether Freitag’s Letter to Cal Terhune Was Protected Speech The Court first considers whether Freitag’s April 15, 1999 letter to Cal Terhune, the then-director of the CDC, constitutes protected First Amendment speech. A public employee’s speech is constitutionally protected if the speech relates to a matter of “public concern” and the employee’s interests in making that speech as a concerned citizen outweigh the state’s interests in controlling and managing its employees. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 143, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). The Ninth Circuit held that Freitag’s “assertions that inmates at Pelican Bay engaged in sexually abusive behavior with respect to the female guards while the prison’s administrators failed to take appropriate corrective measures” clearly address a matter of public concern. Freitag, 468 F.3d at 545-46. Although the court made this statement with respect to Freitag’s letter to Senator Polanco and communications with the Inspector General, it applies equally to her letter to Terhune since all three communications concerned the same subject matter.
Defendants next argue that even if Freitag’s letter to Terhune was written as a concerned citizen rather than as a public employee, it was nonetheless not subject to First Amendment protections because the value of allowing her speech does not outweigh “the government’s interest in
2

Freitag v. California Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

effective and efficient fulfillment of its responsibilities to the public.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 150.1 However, not only was this issue apparently not raised by Defendants on appeal, but Ceballos and the error in the jury instruction identified by the Ninth Circuit also have no bearing on the question of disruption of the workplace. In reaching a verdict for Freitag on her First Amendment claim, the jury necessarily rejected Defendants’ disruption argument; the jury could not have reached a verdict for Freitag had it found sufficient disruption to the workplace to outweigh Freitag’s right to free speech.
Thus, the only issue remaining for this Court’s resolution is whether Freitag’s letter to Terhune was speech made as a citizen or as an employee. In Ceballos, the Supreme Court held “that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” 126 S.Ct. at 1960. Ceballos was therefore not entitled to First Amendment protection for writing an internal memorandum to his supervisors regarding what he believed to be misconduct in an investigation because writing such memoranda “is part of what he, as a calendar deputy, was employed to do.... [T]he memo was written pursuant to Ceballos’ official duties. Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen.” Id.
*4 Here, the Court is convinced that Freitag’s letter to Terhune did not “owe[ ] its existence to [Freitag’s] professional responsibilities.” Id. Although it is undisputed that Terhune, as the departmental director, represented the third level in the grievance process, there is no evidence that Freitag’s letter was part of any grievance; in fact, the evidence at trial points to the contrary. For example, Warden Ayers testified that he was not “ever presented with the [sic] grievance by or on behalf of Officer Freitag concerning Pelican Bay’s response or lack thereof to her complaints of indecent inmate exhibitionism.” Trial Tr. at 2235:17-23.2 Similarly, a union representative at Pelican Bay testified that Freitag did not “ever ask [him] to file a union grievance over inmate masturbation at Pelican Bay State Prison.” Id. at 878:14-16. Nor have Defendants pointed to any evidence that Freitag was in any way required by her official job duties to raise her concerns with Terhune, even if she had the right to do so as part of the grievance process after first attempting resolution with her immediate supervisor and with the warden. In addition, Freitag’s letter to Terhune was not written on official or departmental stationery and, instead, listed Freitag’s home address. Trial Ex. 69 (Ex. C to Manford Decl.). Beyond that, the contents of the letter fail to ask Terhune for any remedy specific to Freitag, such as a request for a job reassignment that Defendants mentioned during oral

argument, and Freitag even referenced the CDC’s obligations to the public: “And, the Department of Corrections owes more to the public than to release an injury [sic, presumably should have been inmate] due to slothful negligence or callous indifference.” Id. Such language “undoubtedly ‘bore similarities to letters submitted by numerous citizens every day.’ “ Freitag, 468 F.3d at 545 (quoting Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. at 1960). Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court therefore concludes that Freitag’s letter to Terhune was written not as an employee, but as a citizen.3
The Terhune letter is indistinguishable in all material respects from Freitag’s letter to Senator Polanco. Defendants apparently acknowledge this fact by arguing that, just as the Terhune letter was part of Freitag’s official job responsibilities, so was the Polanco letter. For instance, Defendants argue that, like her letter to Terhune, Freitag’s letter to Senator Polanco, as chair of the joint legislative prison operations committee, “could also be considered to have been in Freitag’s chain of command” and thus part of her “official responsibilities.” Opp’n at 7. Defendants later assert that Terhune and Polanco were in Freitag’s “chain of command” and had “oversight authority” at Pelican Bay, and that therefore Freitag’s job responsibilities “oblige[d] her to report her concerns about inmate harassment, and PBSP’s response to it” to both individuals. Id. at 15. A primary flaw in Defendants’ argument is that the Ninth Circuit squarely held that Freitag was not acting pursuant to her official job duties when writing to Polanco. Freitag, 468 F.3d at 545. By analogy, it can be said that she also was not acting pursuant to her official job duties when writing to Terhune outside of the formal grievance process. “Freitag does not lose her right to speak as a citizen simply because she initiated the communications while at work or because they concerned the subject matter of her employment.” Id.
II. Whether Defendants Are Protected by Qualified Immunity *5 Defendants next argue that Ceballos created such a change in the law that Defendants Ayers and Schwartz are entitled to qualified immunity on Freitag’s First Amendment claim. The Court rejects this argument.4 The only rights at issue in this case that were not clearly established in light of Ceballos were a public employee’s rights regarding speech made in the course of performing his or her official duties. Ceballos did not change the long-standing right of a public employee to speak out on matters of public concern as a citizen, as long as that right was not outweighed by the government’s interests in suppressing such speech. See, e.g., Connick, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708; Givhan v. W. Line Consol. Sch. Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 99 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979); Perry v. Snidermann, 408 U.S. 593,
3

Freitag v. California Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Pickering, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811. Prior to Ceballos, there may have been some uncertainty regarding the legality of retaliating against a public employee who spoke as part of his or her official job responsibilities on a matter of public concern; however, there was no uncertainty-nor is there any now, following Ceballos-that a public employee speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern is entitled to the protections of the First Amendment (unless the employer is justified in restricting such speech due to factors, such as disruption of the workplace, not present here). Ceballos did not establish a new right; it only narrowed the scope of an existing one. Freitag’s First Amendment right to contact the director of the CDC, a state senator, and the Inspector General as a concerned citizen were clearly established during the relevant time period, and Defendants could not have reasonably believed that their actions against Freitag were lawful.
III. Whether the Erroneous Jury Instruction on Protected Speech Was Harmless The Court now turns to the second issue remanded by the Ninth Circuit:
whether the jury instruction, which included as examples of protected speech either two or three items of unprotected speech, was more probably than not harmless. See Swinton, 270 F.3d at 805. In other words, is it more likely than not that the jury verdict was not affected by the erroneous inclusion of the two or three examples of unprotected speech? Given the district judge’s expertise and his familiarity with the facts in the lengthy trial over which he presided, we think that he is best equipped to answer these questions in the first instance.
Freitag, 468 F.3d at 546 (citing Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794 (9th Cir.2001)).5 Thus, this Court must determine whether it is more probable than not that the jury would have reached the same verdict had it not considered “Freitag’s internal reports of inmate sexual misconduct and documentation of the prison’s failure to respond,” but instead only considered the speech that remains protected following Ceballos-i.e., Freitag’s letter to Terhune, her letters to Polanco, and her oral and written communication with the Office of the Inspector General. Id. at 546; see also, e.g., Haddad v. Lockheed Cal. Corp., 720 F.2d 1454, 1459 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that the harmless error standard in the context of an erroneous

civil jury instruction is whether “the jury’s verdict is more probably than not untainted by the error”). The question is not whether the jury considered the unprotected speech; instead, the question is whether the jury would still more probably than not have found Defendants Schwartz and Ayers liable for First Amendment retaliation even if it did not consider such speech. The harmless error standard differs from the standard for reviewing a verdict for sufficiency of the evidence in that “[i]n reviewing a civil jury instruction for harmless error, the prevailing party is not entitled to have disputed factual questions resolved in his favor because the jury’s verdict may have resulted from a misapprehension of law rather than from factual determinations in favor of the prevailing party.” Caballero v. City of Concord, 956 F.2d 204, 207 (9th Cir.1992).
*6 Based on this Court’s knowledge of the facts presented at trial, it concludes that the erroneous jury instruction was harmless for the reasons discussed below. Defendants do not dispute that Freitag’s counsel’s arguments at trial focused the retaliation claims on the communications Freitag made with Terhune, Polanco, and the Office of the Inspector General, nor do they dispute that Freitag’s “testimony at trial regarding retaliatory acts by [Ayers and Schwartz] dealt with what happened to her after she had exercised her First Amendment rights by writing to Director Terhune and Senator Polanco.” Mot. at 5. Although Freitag’s case may have been bolstered by the evidence regarding Freitag’s internal complaints and documentation of Pelican Bay’s failure to respond, the Court is confident that the jury would more probably than not have reached the same verdict had the jury only considered Freitag’s letters to Terhune and Polanco and her written and oral communications with the Office of the Inspector General. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “[t]here can be no serious dispute that substantial evidence supports the jury’s findings” that Defendants Schwartz and Ayers took adverse employment actions against Freitag-including Ayers’s and Schwartz’s initiation of several internal affairs investigations and both Defendants’ approval of Freitag’s suspension and termination-and that Freitag’s speech was a substantial or motivating factor in those adverse actions. Freitag, 468 F.3d at 543. Defendants’ assertions to the contrary are simply unavailing. For example, in denying Defendants’ motion for a new trial, this Court made the following findings regarding Defendant Schwartz:
Defendants do not dispute that Schwartz signed off on the preliminary notice of adverse action that led to Plaintiff’s termination, recommended the initiation of at least one Internal Affairs investigation of Plaintiff, and chose not to include Plaintiff in a meeting with female officers to discuss their concerns about inmate exhibitionist masturbation. Defendants also do not dispute that Schwartz reduced a rules violation report that Plaintiff wrote regarding inmate “Goldwire”
4

Freitag v. California Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

Jackson from a Division B offense to a Division F offense, though they contend that the reduction was actually ordered by another CDC official, and that Schwartz’s role was a ministerial one.
.... Schwartz’s actions contributed to the building of an unfavorable personnel file and to the perception that Plaintiff was a dishonest officer, the grounds on which Ayers relied in dismissing her from her position at Pelican Bay. Moreover, Plaintiff’s own testimony supports her position that Schwartz’s actions caused her emotional distress.
Aug. 11, 2003 Order Denying Defs.’ Mot. for New Trial at 14. Notably, the evidence regarding Schwartz’s actions against Freitag extend far beyond the fitness-for-duty examination on which Defendants’ opposition focuses.
Given the substantial evidence of retaliation presented in this case, this Court finds that the erroneous inclusion of two examples of unprotected speech in the jury instructions was harmless under the governing standard. Even if it is assumed that the jury believed that Defendants Schwartz and Ayers were liable for retaliation based on Freitag’s unprotected speech, the weight of the evidence regarding retaliation for Freitag’s protected speech more than amply supports a finding of liability on that conduct as well. Thus, while not an absolute certainty, it is more likely than not that the jury’s verdict would have been the same had the jury been given the proper instruction. Accordingly, the Court finds that the erroneous jury instruction resulted in only harmless error.
IV. Whether the Damages or Attorneys’ Fees Awards Must Be Reduced *7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit remanded the jury’s compensatory and punitive damages awards, as well as the issue of attorneys’ fees, for reconsideration “if necessary.” Freitag, 468 F.3d at 547. The appellate court indicated that it would have upheld the damages award had it not remanded Freitag’s § 1983 claim, and this Court was instructed to reconsider the damages and attorneys’ fees awards only if it were to find that the erroneous jury instruction was not harmless and that the § 1983 verdict had to be modified. The court made these statements after it reversed the verdict against Defendant Lopez; thus, it implicitly rejected Defendants’ argument that reversal of the verdict against Lopez requires reversal of the entire damages award because the special verdict form failed to apportion damages among Defendants. In addition, Defendants did “not challenge on appeal the fact that the jury held them jointly and severally liable for the entire award.” Id. Because this Court has ruled that the error in the jury instruction was harmless, and that the § 1983 verdict against Defendants Schwartz and Ayers must therefore be allowed to stand, the Court finds it

unnecessary to review the compensatory and punitive damages awards on remand.
As to the attorneys’ fees award, because the Ninth Circuit reversed the § 1983 verdict against Defendant Lopez, Freitag obviously can no longer be considered a prevailing party as to that claim. However, the Court does not find any reason to alter its attorneys’ fees award. Prior to the appeal, Defendants argued that Freitag’s attorneys’ fees award must be reduced because the jury found five out of eight individual defendants not liable on Freitag’s § 1983 First Amendment claim. Oct. 17, 2003 Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees & Costs at 8. The Court explained that in cases such as this one, where a plaintiff prevails on some issues but is unsuccessful on others, a reduction in fees may be appropriate if the unsuccessful claims are not “related” to the successful claims or if the plaintiff failed to obtain an “excellent result” at trial. Id. at 9 (citations omitted). This Court found that no reduction in fees was necessary because the retaliation claims were all intertwined and because Freitag did obtain an excellent result. Id. at 9-10. That Freitag is no longer prevailing as to one additional defendant does not sufficiently alter the Court’s analysis such that any reduction in the attorneys’ fees award is necessary.
CONCLUSION For all of the reasons discussed above, this Court GRANTS Freitag’s motion regarding the remanded issues in its entirety. It appears that the only remaining issues in this case concern Freitag’s intention to file a motion for supplemental attorneys’ fees and costs and her collection of the full amount of fees and costs awarded by the Court on October 17, 2003. The parties shall first attempt to resolve these issues by meeting and conferring. If they are unable to do so, they may request a referral back to Magistrate Judge James or to any other magistrate judge in San Francisco. The parties shall file a joint status statement regarding their meet-and-confer efforts and any other outstanding issues in this case on or before Monday, July 16, 2007. After reviewing this joint statement, the Court may schedule a further case management conference if it appears that one would be helpful, or the Court may instead choose to issue an appropriate scheduling order.
*8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Parallel Citations
26 IER Cases 634
	  
5

Freitag v. California Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

Footnotes

1

Defendants incorrectly cite to page 146 of the Connick opinion. Opp’n at 11.

2

Although Freitag cited this page of the transcript in her reply brief, she failed to submit a copy to the Court via a supporting

declaration. Nor did Freitag submit copies of any of the portions of the trial transcript or other trial documents cited in her opening

or reply briefs. It is insufficient simply to cite to entries in the Court’s docket. Copies of cited documents must be submitted via a

supporting declaration. If either party fails to comply with this rule in the future, they may expect the imposition of monetary

sanctions.

3

The Court considered only the evidence at trial and did not rely on any of the disputed declarations submitted by Freitag in

connection with the instant motion.

4

Additionally, the Court notes that qualified immunity was not an issue that the Ninth Circuit remanded to this Court for further

consideration.

5

In light of the Ninth Circuit’s specific instruction to this Court to decide this issue, Freitag’s argument that Defendants failed to

preserve the issue of erroneous jury instructions is unpersuasive. The appellate court evidently found the issue to be preserved on

appeal.

	  

6

 
 Freitag v. Cal. Dep't of Corr.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California July 20, 2007, Decided; July 20, 2007, Filed NO. C00-2278 TEH

Reporter: 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56035; 2007 WL 2118925 DEANNA L. FREITAG, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
Subsequent History: Magistrate's recommendation at, Costs and fees proceeding at Freitag v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119220 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2008)
Prior History: Freitag v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43769 (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2007)
Counsel: [*1] For Deanna L. Freitag, Plaintiff: Pamela Yvette Price, LEAD ATTORNEY, Price & Associates, A Professional Law Corporation, Oakland, CA.; Charles Stephen Ralston, Attorney at Law, East Chatham, NY.; John L. Burris, Law Offices of John L. Burris, Oakland, CA.
For Robert J. Ayers, Jr., Teresa Schwartz, California Department of Corrections, Defendants: Kathryn Allen, Richard Lee Manford, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Vincent John Scally, Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.; Jacob A. Appelsmith, Attorney General's Office, Sacramento, CA.; Lyn Harlan, Attorney General's Office, Oakland, CA.
For David A. Carmichael, G. Rodman, Paul Dillard, Barry O'Neill, George Neotti, Auggie Lopez, Defendants: Kathryn Allen, Richard Lee Manford, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Vincent John Scally, Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.; Jacob A. Appelsmith, Attorney General's Office, Sacramento, CA.
Judges: THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE.
Opinion by: THELTON E. HENDERSON
Opinion

Pursuant to the December 4, 2003 order, Defendants placed $ 1,700,000 in a special deposit fund pending Defendants' appeal of the jury's verdict and this Court's grant of injunctive relief. The order provided that:
If Defendants are successful on appeal, then the restrictions on Defendants' ability to spend the $ 1,700,000 set aside in accordance with this order shall be dissolved once the [United States Court of Appeals for the] Ninth Circuit issues its mandate. If, on the other hand, Defendants are unsuccessful on appeal, then they shall pay the required funds to Plaintiff within thirty days, without any further action required by Plaintiff or her counsel.Dec. 4, 2003 Order at 5. The parties now dispute whether Defendants were "successful" or "unsuccessful" on appeal within the meaning of the Court's order.
The Ninth Circuit issued its decision affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding in part this Court's post-trial rulings on September 13, 2006, and made minor amendments to that decision on November 3, 2006. Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,127 S. Ct. 1918, 167 L. Ed. 2d 567 (2007). [*3] The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict on Freitag's Title VII claims and also affirmed this Court's grant of injunctive relief. The court reversed the First Amendment retaliation judgment against Defendant Lopez based on insufficiency of the evidence, and it remanded the remaining First Amendment retaliation claims, as well as the damages and attorneys' fees awards as necessary, to this Court for further consideration in light of Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 126 S. Ct. 1951, 164 L. Ed. 2d 689 (2006). On June 6, 2007, this Court found for Plaintiff on all remanded issues, and Defendants filed a timely appeal on June 28, 2007.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ORDER OF PAYMENT OF FUNDS FROM SPECIAL DEPOSIT FUND
In conjunction with the parties' jointly filed July 16, 2007 status statement, Plaintiff Deanna Freitag filed a proposed order of payment from the special deposit fund created as a result of this Court's December [*2] 4, 2003 Order Granting Stay of Execution of Judgment Without Supersedeas Bond.

As long as Defendants' appeal remains pending, Defendants cannot be said to have been unsuccessful on appeal. If this Court's June 6, 2007 order is reversed, then the monetary damages or amount of attorneys' fees awarded to Plaintiff may ultimately be reduced. The reasoning in this Court's December 4, 2003 order therefore continues to apply, and the Court thus finds good cause to DENY Plaintiff's request for an order that $

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56035, *3

1,006,500 be immediately paid to Plaintiff and her attorneys

out of the special deposit fund.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

The Court notes, however, that Defendants have already paid Plaintiff's [*4] counsel $ 593,500 out of the special deposit fund pursuant to a stipulation reached by the parties and ordered by the Court on April 25, 2007. By denying Plaintiff's request for an order of payment, the Court does not preclude any future similar stipulations for payment while Defendants' latest appeal remains pending.

Dated: 07/20/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 
 Freitag v. California Dep't of Corr.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California October 17, 2003, Decided ; October 17, 2003, Filed No. C 00-02278 TEH

Reporter: 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26579 DEANNA L. FREITAG, Plaintiff, v. CA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al., Defendants.
Subsequent History: Subsequent appeal at, Remanded by Freitag v. Ayers, 463 F.3d 838, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 23383 (9th Cir. Cal., 2006)
Prior History: Madrid v. Gomez, 940 F. Supp. 247, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13415 (N.D. Cal., 1996)
Counsel: [*1] For DEANNA L. FREITAG, Plaintiff: Pamela Y. Price, Price and Associates PLC, Oakland, CA; John L. Burris, Law Offices of John L. Burris, Oakland, CA.
For ROBERT J. AYERS, JR., TERESA SCHWARTZ, DAVID A. CARMICHAEL, G. RODMAN, PAUL DILLARD, BARRY O'NEILL, GEORGE NEOTTI, AUGGIE LOPEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, defendants: Richard L. Manford, Marybelle Archibald, Jacob A. Appelsmith, CA Attorney General's Office, Sacramento, CA.
Judges: THELTON E. HENDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Opinion by: THELTON E. HENDERSON
Opinion
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
This matter came before the Court on Monday, July 28, 2003 on plaintiffs Motion for Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Having carefully considered the parties' written and oral arguments, the supporting documentation, the supplemental declarations, the parties' August 20, 2003 stipulation, and the entire record herein, the Court grants plaintiff's motion as set forth below.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Deanna Freitag ("Freitag") brought this action on June 27, 2000 alleging that defendants -- the California Department of Corrections ("CDC") and several CDC employees -- discriminated against, and [*2] harassed her, on the basis of her sex. She also claimed that defendants retaliated against her for protected activity. It was not easy,

however, for Freitag to obtain experienced counsel willing to represent her. See Freitag Decl., P 4. The unusual factual nature of her claims raised significant and difficult issues against a large institutional defendant that has a reputation for not settling cases. The events at issue also occurred in a remote part of California. See Price Decl., PP 30-31; Chanin Decl., P 10; Schwartz Decl., P 8; Chanin Decl., P 8; McNeill Decl., P 10-11 (discussing difficulty of obtaining experienced counsel in such cases). In accepting the case, plaintiff's counsel plainly undertook a substantial risk, and was ultimately required to advance costs of almost $ 100,000. See Price Decl., P 33; Schwartz Decl., P 11 ("The risk posed to Plaintiff's counsel in a civil rights case such as this one is extraordinarily high").
As anticipated, the action was vigorously contested and litigated at both the pre-trial stage and trial stage. After a roughly month-long trial commencing March 4, 2003, and concluding on April 2, 2003, the jury fully vindicated plaintiffs [*3] claim that her civil rights had been violated. Specifically, the jury found that the CDC had discriminated against Freitag on the basis of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), and that defendants Robert Ayers, Theresa Schwartz, Augie Lopez, and the CDC, had retaliated against Freitag for her opposition to sexual harassment and discrimination, in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The jury found that five other individual defendants had no liability. The jury awarded Freitag $ 600,000.00 in compensatory damages and $ 300.00 in punitive damages. Plaintiff also subsequently obtained permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Pelican Bay officials from committing further violations of Title VII. See Order Granting Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Permanent Injunctive Relief. In addition, the Court directed the Special Master in Madrid v. Gomez, C90-3094 to oversee the development of a remedial plan to address the problem of inmate exhibitionist masturbation. Id.
As the prevailing party, plaintiff now seeks to recover for the reasonable time and costs expended [*4] by counsel in prosecuting this case pursuant to the fee shifting provisions set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). Specifically, plaintiff requests fees in the amount of $ 982,992.50 through April 30, 2003, and non-statutory costs in the amount of $ 68,082.20. Defendants assert that the amount awarded should be

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26579, *4

Page 2 of 7

substantially reduced because the hourly rates requested are they do not reflect prevailing market rates for "such a small

unreasonably high, and the number of hours requested is firm." See Defs.' Opp. at 4. Defendants cite no precedent from

excessive. Each of defendants' objections is discussed in turn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, that supports a

below.

"small firm" distinction; nor does this Court find

II. DISCUSSION

that [*6] such an approach is warranted. Indeed, under defendants' logic, lawyers working at public interest

To determine a reasonable attorney's fee, the Court must multiply the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983). There is a strong presumption that this lodestar figure constitutes a "reasonable" attorneys' fee since most relevant considerations are subsumed within this initial calculation. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 564, 92 L. Ed. 2d 439, 106 S. Ct. 3088 (1986). Only in rare cases will adjustment of the lodestar be appropriate, id. at 565, and in this case, [*5] neither party argues that such an adjustment is warranted. Accordingly, the

organizations or in solo practices that serve the poor and charge little or nothing to their clients would be able to recover little or nothing when prevailing in a civil rights action, despite the significant risks inherent in accepting such cases. Such an outcome would discourage many qualified lawyers from accepting civil rights cases and thus severely undermine the very purpose of fee shifting statutes. See e.g. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 v. State of Washington, 633 F.2d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 1980) ("The congressional purpose in providing attorney's fees in civil rights cases was to eliminate financial barriers to the vindication of constitutional rights and to stimulate voluntary compliance with the law"). 2

Court turns to the parties' disputes concerning the hourly rates [*7] Moreover, the reduction defendants specifically propose

and number of hours.

for Ms. Price -- from $ 425.00 to $ 350.00 per hour -- is not

A. Reasonable Hourly Rate

reasonable given that the Honorable William H. Orrick, Ret., awarded Ms. Price, admitted to practice in 1983, $ 350.00 per

In assessing a reasonable hourly rate, courts should consider the prevailing market rate in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891, 104 S. Ct. 1541 and n. 11 (1984); United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Affidavits of the plaintiffs' attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs' attorney, are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate").

hour five years ago in 1998, see Price Decl., Exh. B, and Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero set Ms. Price's fees for monitoring work at $ 400.00 per hour in November 2002. See Croskrey v. Contra Costa County, No. C73-0906 JCS (N.D. Cal), pls' Third Suppl. Decl., Exh. B. 3 The Court also notes that Ms. Price requested $ 375.00 per hour in October 2001 in connection with a discovery motion, stating that this rate was consistent with the rates charged by Bay Area attorneys with comparable experience. See Schratz Decl., Exh. 3 at 5. Taking all of the above into account, as well as the declarations submitted by both sides, and the Court's own familiarity with the prevailing market, and Ms. Price's extensive experience in

Defendants first contend that the hourly rates sought by Ms. civil rights litigation, skill, and reputation,

Price and her associates 1 should be reduced because

1 Defendants do not object to the hourly rate sought by Mr. Burris.
2 Although defendants at oral argument conceded this adverse effect, they suggested that such a distinction is nonetheless justified because all small firms have lower overhead costs than large firms. See Gucci America Inc., v. Rebecca Gold Enterprises Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3486, 1993 WL 88270 (S.D. N.Y.). Aside from defendants' failure to empirically support this argument, this Circuit has never identified "overhead" as a relevant basis for reducing an otherwise appropriate hourly rate. Furthermore, the fact that a particular firm or organization may have a lower overhead than other firms or organizations does not, in this Court's view, justify the adverse effect such an approach would have on the ability of plaintiffs to obtain experienced and competent counsel necessary to vindicate important civil rights. Accordingly, this Court declines to adopt what would effectively be a "low overhead penalty." Finally, the Court notes that in its experience, the hourly rate it has awarded Ms. Price is in any event lower than that which would likely be charged by a partner with her level of experience at the largest firms in this area.
3 The Court also notes that the declaration of Stephen Schear, cited to by defendants, see Shratz Decl., Exh. 4 at 35 is not particularly relevant. Defendants cite to this declaration as an example of an experienced employment and civil rights attorney in Oakland, California admitted in 1978, who sought an hourly rate of $ 250.00 in 2002. However, as Mr. Schear's declaration explains, his client "negotiated a lower hourly fee . . . than the prevailing market rate" based on a partial contingent fee arrangement he had entered into which caused him the bear the risk of receiving far less than market rate if he lost entirely and more than market rate if he had obtained a very large judgment. As such, Mr. Schear's declaration does not provide a helpful comparison.

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26579, *7

Page 3 of 7

the Court concludes that a reasonable hourly rate for Ms. "identify the general subject matter of his time expenditures."

Price in this case is $ 400.00 per hour.

Id. at 437 n. 12; Fischer v. SJB P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115,

[*8] With respect to the specific hourly rates for Ms. Price's associates, defendants' remaining objections lack merit. For example, defendants reference a billing rate survey regarding small firms that was published in 2001. See e.g. Schratz Decl. at 17-18. Such figures are out of date and, as discussed above, focus improperly on"small firms." Notably, defendants also fail to attach a copy of the survey. They also cite to declarations from lawyers who do not have comparable experience. See Shratz Decl., at 17, and Exh. 6 (declaration of

1121 (9th Cir. 2000) [*10] ("plaintiffs counsel can meet his burden -- although just barely-by simply listing his hours and identify[ing] the general subject matter of his time expenditures'") (citation omitted);. Davis v. City and County of San Francisco 976 F.2d 1536, 1542 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated in part on other grounds, 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993). It is the burden of the party opposing the request to submit specific objections to the hours expended. Gates v Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1404 (9th Cir. 1992).

lawyer practicing 6 years cited in support of reducing rate for Plaintiff seeks compensation for a total of 2,776.05 hours,

Mr. Douglass, practicing 10 years). With respect to Mr. Allen, including 2,334.15 hours for Price and Associates, and 441.90

defendants' own declarations support his requested rate of $ hours for John Burris, through April 30, 2003. 4 Plaintiff's

250 per hour. See Shratz Decl. at 17 and Exh. 6 (declaration counsel states that she exercised billing judgment by

of lawyer practicing same amount of time as Mr. Allen lists reviewing the billing log sheets each month and editing the

billing rate as $ 250 per hour). Given the supporting billing statements to ensure that the time billed was justified

declarations, and the record in this case, this Court is satisfied by the tasks delineated and that vague entries were excluded.

that the hourly rates sought for Ms. Price's associates are Suppl. Price Decl., P 3. Plaintiff's counsel also excluded all

reasonable.

time expended by any attorney or paralegal who spent less

Finally, defendants contend that the hourly rate sought for Ms. Price's paralegal, Monique Beaver, should be reduced from $ 150 per hour to $ 85.00 [*9] per hour. While defendants' "auditor" asserts that this is the prevailing market rate for paralegals at small firms, he provides no

than 50 hours on the case for a total deduction of 97 hours. Shratz Decl., P 13, n 2.; Price Decl., P 55 5. [*11] Defendants, however, contend that the amount of hours requested are excessive for a number of reasons each of which is discussed below.

documentation to support this statement. On the other hand, 1. Block Billing and Vague Entries

plaintiff also fails to satisfactorily document the

reasonableness of the rate of $ 150, and it appears to be First, [*12] defendants contend that plaintiff's fee award

somewhat excessive for Ms. Beaver's level of experience See should be reduced an unspecified amount to account for

Price Decl., P 52. Accordingly, Ms. Beaver's time shall be various "block billing" and "vague" entries. With respect to

compensated at an hourly rate of $ 105.00, which is consistent the block billing, defendants cite to no authority in this Circuit

with her qualifications and experience.

that requires that each time entry pertain to a single task. Nor

do defendants complain that the descriptions in the identified

B. Reasonable Number of Hours

instances of block billing lack sufficient. On the contrary a

A fee applicant has the burden of "documenting the appropriate hours expended." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. To this end, the applicant should exercise "sound billing judgment" regarding the number of hours worked, eliminating excessive, redundant, unproductive, or unnecessary hours, and provide the district court with billing records supporting the time claimed. Id. at 433. Plaintiff's counsel "is not required to record in great detail how each minute of his time was expended," but should

review of the block billing entries identified by defendants indicates a substantial degree of specificity. See Schratz Decl. at 7-12. The Court also notes that while the better practice would be to avoid block billing altogether, and thus avoid disputes of this nature, the block billing identified in this case was not extensive. This is not a situation in which, for each day worked on the case, counsel routinely lumped every task relating to the case into one time entry. Rather, for the most part defendants identify instances were some tasks were grouped together,

4 The parties have stipulated that the total numbers of hours claimed by plaintiffs' counsel Pamela Price and her associates is accurately reflected in the billing statements presented to the Court through April 30, 2003. See Aug. 20, 2003 Stipulation and Order. Defendants also do not dispute that the number of hours claimed by plaintiff's counsel John Burris is accurately reflected in his billing statements presented to the Court.
5 The Court notes, however, that the declaration mistakenly identifies the number of hours deducted on this ground as 125.5 instead of 97. An independent calculation by the Court demonstrates that the actual number of documented hours through April 30, 2003 is 2420.60. Accordingly, the number of hours reduced to account for attorneys or paralegals who spent less than 50 hours on the case is 97.

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26579, *12

Page 4 of 7

while other tasks for the same day were separated out. Also, were dismissed on summary judgment, as well as the

many of the identified examples involved relatively small conspiracy [*15] claim. See Defs.' Opp. at 8, 10-11. In

blocks of time. Notably, even defendants' "auditor" does not addition, defendants conclusorily assert that plaintiff can not

recommend a disallowance [*13] based solely on blocked recover for time incurred on three motions: (1) an ex parte

billing. Id. at 12.

motion to file a late opposition to defendants' motion for

The only "vague" entries identified by defendants concern Mr. Burris' entries for "trial preparation." Mr. Burris was brought into the case on the eve of trial to assist solely with trial preparation and the trial itself, and it is self-evident to this Court that Mr. Burris was in fact consumed with trial

summary judgment. (2) an unsuccessful motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling, and (3) an unsuccessful motion for leave to amend the second amended complaint to add class allegations and additional plaintiffs. Id. at 11; Shratz Decl. at 25.

preparation leading up to, and throughout the actual trial. The (a) Dismissed claims and defendants

Court finds no basis for reducing Mr. Burris' hours simply because he did not breakdown the exact nature of each item of trial preparation. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, n.12; Fischer 214 F.3d at 1121. Notably, defendants own auditor, again, does not recommend a disallowance of Mr. Burris' time based solely on grounds of "vagueness." See Schratz Decl. at 12.

Notably, defendants completely fail to apply the applicable law in cases such as this, where a plaintiff prevails on some matters and is unsuccessful on others. In such instances, courts must undertake a two-part analysis. First, the court must determine whether "the claims upon which the plaintiff failed to prevail were related to the plaintiff's successful

Given all of the above, the Court declines to reduce plaintiff's claims." Thorne v. City of El Segundo, 802 F.2d 1131, 1141

fee award to account for the identified instances "block (9th Cir. 1986). As the Ninth Circuit has acknowledged, this

billing" or "vague" entries.

test is not precise. Id. In general, however, claims are

2. Effect of Unsuccessful Portions of Case

"related" if they involve a common core of facts, arise out of a common course of conduct, or are based on

related [*16] legal theories. Id.; Schwarz v. Secretary of

Plaintiff's second amended complaint alleged four causes of Health & Human Services, 73 F.3d 895, 902-04 (9th Cir.

action:

1995); O'Neal v. City of Seattle, 66 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir.

(1) a Title VII claim against CDC for sexuallyhostile work environment,

1995). Conversely, claims are unrelated if the " relief sought on the unsuccessful claim is intended to remedy a course of conduct entirely distinct and separate from the course of

(2) a Title VII claim against CDC [*14] for retaliation for complaining about the sexually hostile

conduct that gave rise to the injury on which the relief granted is premised.'" Schwarz, 73 F.3d at 903 (citation omitted).

work environment,

If the claims are related, the court must then undertake the

(3) a section 1983 claim against eight individual second part of the analysis by evaluating the significance of

defendants for violation of plaintiff's constitutional the overall relief obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the

rights of free speech, equal protection, due process, hours reasonably expended. O'Neal, 66 F.3d at 1068-9. If the

and privacy, and

plaintiff obtained an "excellent result," full compensation may

(4) a conspiracy claim against the eight individual defendants to deprive plaintiff of her constitutional

be appropriate, while partial or limited success may warrant a reduction. Id.

rights.

Here, the Court readily finds that a common core of facts

This Court granted a partial summary judgment in defendants' favor on March 25, 2002, dismissing the equal protection, due process, and privacy right claims in the third cause of action, and dismissing the fourth cause of action for conspiracy. The case proceeded to trial on the first three causes of action (with the third limited to the free speech claim). As noted above, the jury found in plaintiff's favor on all three claims, although five of the eight individual defendants were found not liable on the third claim.

underlay all of the plaintiff's claims against all defendants, since all of plaintiff's claims concerned a common set of circumstances confronting plaintiff at a single place of employment and defendants' [*17] responses thereto. While certain individual defendants were not held liable at trial, all of the defendants were involved in either supervising plaintiff and/or responding to the incidents at issue, and thus were all sufficiently intertwined to be "related" to the claims upon which plaintiff prevailed. Notably, defendants' papers do not argue otherwise.

Defendants contend that plaintiff's fees should be substantially reduced to account for the fact that five of the eight individual defendants were found not liable on the third claim and that three of her four § 1983 constitutional claims

Equally clear is that plaintiff obtained an "excellent result" in this action. While defendants mightily attempt to

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26579, *17

Page 5 of 7

downplay plaintiff's success, the fact remains that plaintiff the Court will exclude all hours expended on this motion. 6

was fully vindicated on all her core claims, and was granted a

very substantial compensatory award of $ 600,000. The fact [*20] 3. Allegations of Excessive Billing

that the jury did not grant all of the damages requested does not significantly detract from plaintiff's success. Plaintiff also convinced the jury that the conduct of three individual defendants met the standard for punitive damages, albeit the

Defendants also contend that plaintiffs counsel spent an excessive amount of time on (1) opposing defendants' motion for summary judgment, and (2) trial preparation.

amount of punitives damages awarded was small. All in all, it is plain that the jury fully accepted plaintiff's version of (a) Summary Judgment Motion

events and fully rejected defendants' version. As noted earlier, the risks inherent in a civil rights case of this nature are significant. Given these risks, and the outcome [*18] achieved, the result in this action, as stated above, is no less than "excellent." Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for reducing plaintiff's fees in this case to account for the dismissed defendants or claims.

Plaintiff spent 208.55 hours opposing defendants' motion for summary judgment, Defendants contend this amount of time was excessive and should be reduced to 100 hours. Defendants' summary judgment motion, however, was a comprehensive 25-page motion that raised 16 issues and was supported by 12 separate declarations. Given this, and the effort demonstrated by plaintiff's opposition and supporting

(b) Motions

declarations, the Court is not persuaded that a reduction is justified.

As noted above, defendants summarily assert that this Court should disallow any hours related to plaintiff's motions for (1) leave to file a late opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, (2) reconsideration of portions of the summary judgment ruling, and (3) leave to amend to add class allegations. In the Ninth Circuit, fees for an unsuccessful motion are not automatically excluded. Rather, an ultimately successful plaintiff should be compensated for steps along the path to victory, even if every step is not successful, where the motion constituted "a method of pursuing her ultimately successful claims," O'Neal, 66 F.3d at 1064, 1067, was a necessary stage of the case, NAACP v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1984), or otherwise contributes to the plaintiff's ultimate success.
Plaintiff's ex parte motion to file a late opposition brief was plainly a reasonable (and successful) step toward prevailing [*19] in this action. Similarly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on the summary judgment motion (which the Court only agreed to entertain because it believed it might have merit), was a reasonable, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, method of pursuing her ultimately successful claims. As to plaintiff's motion to add several new plaintiffs and class allegations, this motion -- essentially brought on the eve of trial -- was denied on the grounds that it was extremely untimely and prejudicial to defendants. See Court's May 29, 2002 order at 3 (Explaining that procedural posture of the case was "as if it were on the eve of trial"). The Court concludes that the motion was neither a reasonable method of pursuing plaintiff's ultimately successful claims nor a step that contributed to plaintiff's ultimate success. Accordingly,

(b) Trial Preparation
Plaintiff's counsel Price and Associates expended 208.25 hours for trial preparation (excluding motions in limine and jury instructions). Mr. Burris expended an additional 247.10 hours for trial time and trial preparation. Although defendants' legal auditor asserts that the amount claimed is excessive based on his experience, id., he provides no specific or objective basis for this assertion, and instead conclusorily asserts that the hours in this category [*21] should be reduced by 20 percent. Given the complexity and length of the trial, the number of defendants (eight individual defendants and one institutional defendant), the number of documents involved, and the fact the plaintiff's counsel clearly knew their case well at trial, the Court is not persuaded that the amount of time sought for trial preparation is excessive.
4. Travel Time
Defendants object that Price and Associates billed the full hourly rate for travel time, primarily to Crescent City, California to attend depositions and conduct document review at Pelican Bay State Prison. See Schratz Decl., at 24. They contend that travel time should be reduced by 50 percent. As plaintiff explains in her reply papers, however, Price and Associates bill only one-way for travel, thus effectively reducing their travel rates to 50 percent. Price Suppl. Decl., P 5. Accordingly, this objection appears misplaced.
5. Fees Relating to Delays Caused by Plaintiff's Counsel

6 Plaintiffs' counsel Pamela Price expended a total of 36.35 hours, and Mr. C. Jeffrey Fletcher at total of 34.30 hours, on this matter. See Price Third Suppl. Decl., Exh. C.

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26579, *21

Page 6 of 7

Defendants also complain that the trial date was moved three While time spent by secretaries or clerical staff is

times and that plaintiffs law firm is responsible for the noncompensable overhead, defendants

associated delay. See Defendants' Opp. at 10. In fact, cite no authority for the proposition that attorney time spent

however, plaintiff's counsel is [*22] only responsible for the instructing staff regarding specific duties in a particular case

first change in trial date, which occurred after plaintiff filed is considered part of overhead. Accordingly, the Court

her opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment declines to reduce plaintiff's fee award on this ground.

one week late due to counsel's failure to properly calendar the due date. The second and third trial date changes (which C. Costs

involved minor delays) were made by the Court to accommodate its calendar and a death in the family. Accordingly, the last two delays (and any resulting additional trial preparation) are not the fault of the plaintiff. Moreover, some degree of delay is often present in litigation and does not, in and of itself, justify a reduction in fees. Nor have defendants even identified any specific hours that they believe are specifically attributable to undue delays actually caused by plaintiff. Accordingly, this objection is not grounds for a reduction of plaintiff's fee award. 7

Defendants complain that plaintiff has not provided supporting documentation of the non-statutory costs sought. Defendants, however, cite no authority that requires a plaintiff to provide actual receipts for such costs such as postage, photocopying, chart reproduction, delivery costs, witness fees, etc. that are otherwise adequately itemized and appear reasonable. See United Steelworkers, 896 F.2d at 407 ("Reasonable [*24] expenses are allowed as part of the fee"). Accordingly, defendants' complaint that all of plaintiff's nonstatutory costs should be disallowed because they are not

[*23] 6. Attorney Communications with Clerical Staff

supported by actual receipts is rejected.

Price and Associates' detailed billing records contain various references to "instruct secretary" (i.e. "Instruct Secretary regarding Client's Answers to Interrogatories"; "Instruct Secretary regarding Stipulation to Doctor Stokes"). See Shratz Decl., Exh. 8. Defendants contend that time spent on such tasks are a part of office overhead and thus noncompensable.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs (through April 30, 2003) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part consistent with the above. Defendants shall pay plaintiff the following fees and non-statutory costs within 30 days of the date of this Order:

Hours Hourly Rate

Amount

Pamela Price

1,047.25 $ 400

$ 418,900.00

John L. Bums

441.90 $ 450

$ 198,855.00

Michael Douglass

265.95 $ 325

$ 86,433.75

C. Jeffrey Fletcher

234.15 $ 300

$ 70,245.00

Maria C. LaHood

78.90 $ 275

$ 21,697.50

Curtis E. Allen

225.95 $ 250

$ 56.487.50

Susan E. Thompson

340.30 $ 200

$ 68,060.00

Paralegal:

Monique Beaver

71.00 $ 105

$ 7,455.00

Total Attorney Fees Due:

$ 928,133.75

7 At argument, defendants suggested that plaintiffs' counsels' hourly rates should be reduced so that counsel does not benefit from higher rates resulting from the delay. This argument, however, fails to account for the fact that (1) plaintiffs' counsel also experienced a corresponding delay in payment, and (2) the length of the delay was not entirely attributable to plaintiffs.

2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26579, *25

Page 7 of 7

Total Non-statutory Costs Due: IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 17, 2003 [*25] THELTON E. HENDERSON

$ 68,082.20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 289 Fed.Appx. 146 This case was not selected for publication in West’s
Federal Reporter. See Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir.
Rule 36-3. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Deanna L. FREITAG, Plaintiff—Appellee, v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants,
and Robert J. Ayers, Jr.; et al., Defendants—Appellants.
No. 07–16200. |
Submitted April 8, 2008.* |
Filed April 11, 2008.
Synopsis Background: Female former corrections officer brought action against state Department of Corrections (DOC), and DOC officials, alleging hostile work environment claims based on officials’ alleged failure to stop male prisoners’ sexual harassment of female officer and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the First Amendment. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Thelton E. Henderson, J., entered jury verdict in favor of officer. Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals, Reinhardt, Circuit Judge,
468 F.3d 528, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for reconsideration of officer’s First Amendment retaliation claim and damages award On remand, the District Court, 2007 WL 1670307,granted officer’s motion re remanded issues. Defendants appealed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals held that:
[1] officer’s letter to director of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) complaining of hostile work environment was made as citizen and not as government employee, and
[2] error in instruction which permitted jury to consider

both speech that was protected and speech that was unprotected was “more probably than not harmless.”
Affirmed.
Noonan, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting statement.
Procedural Posture(s): On Appeal.
West Headnotes (2)
[1] Constitutional Law Prisons;  parole and probation officers
Prisons Conduct and control in general
Public Employment Protected activities
Female corrections officer’s letter to director of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) complaining of sexual harassment by male prisoners was made as citizen and not as government employee, for purposes of First Amendment retaliation claim; speech did not owe its existence to her professional responsibilities and was written outside of working hours, on her personal stationary, and listed her home address, director called officer at home to discuss its contents, and letter did not request any specific remedy such as job reassignment but rather described events taking place, criticized supervisors’ failure to take action, and noted CDCR’s obligations to public to ensure that dangerous inmates were not released due to slothful negligence or callous indifference. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
2 Cases that cite this headnote

[2] Federal Courts Instructions

In corrections officer’s

§ 1983 First

Amendment retaliation case, error in instruction

which permitted jury to consider both speech

1

that was protected and speech that was unprotected was more probably than not harmless; in its instructions, district court provided jury with six examples of protected speech, only two of which were unprotected, overwhelming evidence presented at trial reflected that retaliatory acts were based on protected speech, and employee’s counsel’s closing argument emphasized retaliation taken for protected activities, including employee’s letter to director and reports to public officials. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
Cases that cite this headnote
Attorneys and Law Firms
*147 John L. Burris, Esq., Law Offices of John L. Burris Airport Corporate Center, Pamela Y. Price, Esq., Price & Associates, Oakland, CA, Charles S. Ralston, Esq., East Chatham, NY, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Kathryn Allen, Esq., Richard L. Manford, Esq., Vincent J. Scally, Jr., Esq., Lyn Harlan, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants–Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Thelton E. Henderson, Sen. District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV–00–02278–TEH.
Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM** **1 This case returns to us after a limited remand to the district court. Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir.2006) [hereinafter Freitag I ].
I.

[1] We agree with the district court that Freitag’s letter to Terhune was made as a citizen and not as a government employee. First, unlike in Garcetti v. Ceballos, Freitag’s speech did not “owe[ ] its existence to [Freitag’s] professional responsibilities” as a correctional officer.
547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 1960, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). Neither party contends that Freitag’s letter was part of the grievance process. Indeed, both Freitag’s union representative and Defendant Ayers acknowledged during trial that they did not construe the letter as a grievance. Second, Freitag’s letter was written outside of working hours, on her personal stationary, and listing her home address. The private nature of the correspondence is further evidenced by the fact that Terhune responded to the letter by calling Freitag at home to discuss its contents. Third, Freitag’s letter did not request any specific remedy, such as a job reassignment. Rather, it described the events taking place at Pelican Bay, criticized the supervisors’ failure to take action, and noted CDCR’s obligations to the public to ensure that dangerous inmates were not “release[d] ... due to slothful negligence or callous indifference.” Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Freitag’s letter to Terhune constitutes protected speech.1
*148 II.
[2] We also agree with the district court that the error in the jury instruction was “more probably than not
harmless.” Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794, 805 (9th Cir.2001) (internal citation omitted). First, in its instructions, the district court provided the jury with six examples of protected speech, only two of which we determined were unprotected in light of Ceballos. See
Freitag, 468 F.3d at 544. Moreover, the special verdict form framed the First Amendment question primarily in terms of protected speech, citing as “protected activity ... [Freitag’s] complaints about inmate sexual misconduct or her complaints about Defendant California Department of Corrections’ response to inmate exhibitionist masturbation.” Second, the “overwhelming evidence presented at trial” reflects that the retaliatory acts were
based on protected speech. Swinton, 270 F.3d at 806. Freitag testified that eight days after she sent her letter to Director Terhune, she saw Terhune and Defendant Ayers walking together in the prison area. That same day, Freitag was relieved of her position in the Security Housing Unit pending a psychiatric evaluation.2 In July and August 1999, Freitag was the subject of two internal
2

affairs investigations initiated by Ayers and, following her letters to Senator Polanco, she was investigated two more
times. Freitag, 468 F.3d at 535. Ultimately, Defendant Schwartz sent Freitag preliminary and final notices of adverse action arising out of these internal affairs investigations and Freitag was terminated, effective June
23, 2000. Id. at 535–36. See Freitag, 2007 WL 1670307, at *6 (describing how defendant “Schwartz’s actions contributed to the building of an unfavorable personnel file and to the perception that Plaintiff was a dishonest officer, the grounds on which Ayers relied in dismissing her from her position”). Third, there is no dispute that Freitag’s counsel’s closing argument emphasized retaliation taken for protected activities, including the letter to Terhune and reports to public officials.
**2 Taking into consideration the jury instructions as a whole, counsel’s closing arguments, and the overwhelming evidence presented at trial that the defendants’ retaliatory acts were committed after Freitag engaged in protected speech, we agree with the district court that the erroneous inclusion of two examples of unprotected speech in the jury instructions was “more
probably than not harmless.” Swinton, 270 F.3d at 805.3

Because we affirm the district court’s findings that the Terhune letter constitutes protected speech and that the instructional error was more probably than not harmless, we leave intact its determination that the jury’s compensatory and punitive damages awards should remain undisturbed. It follows that the district court’s decision not to alter the attorneys’ fees award was correct.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
NOONAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
**2 As the Supreme Court acknowledged in its 5–4 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006), it has been difficult to differentiate between citizen speech and employee speech “that has some potential to affect the entity’s operation.” Difficult, delicate as the differentiation is, it seems to me that Freitag wrote Terhune as a professional prison employee.
All Citations
289 Fed.Appx. 146, 2008 WL 1734181

*149 III.

Footnotes

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36–3.

1

We reject Defendants’ arguments that “[b]ecause [Freitag’s] letter ... had official consequences, the letter owed its

existence to her professional responsibilities....” As this case illustrates, many actions taken as a citizen, including

writing a letter to a Senator or an Inspector General, may have “official consequences[,]” such as the initiation of

investigations into misconduct. Such consequences are not necessarily the mark of employee speech; in some cases,

as in this one, they are an indicator of a citizen’s successful advocacy.

2

Defendants dispute that they knew of the letter to Director Terhune on April 23, 1999, when Freitag was reassigned

and sent for a psychiatric examination. Freitag’s testimony that she saw Terhune and Ayers together at the prison that

day contradicts this assertion. Even assuming that the jury did not believe Freitag’s testimony in this respect, it is clear

that Defendant Ayers was aware of the letter by May 18, 1999, the day after the regional administrator sent Ayers

notice that Terhune had received a staff complaint from Freitag. There is overwhelming evidence that the defendants

engaged in retaliatory action after this date.

3

In their briefing, both parties raise additional issues that are beyond the limited scope of our remand. Freitag argues

that Defendants failed to preserve the issue of erroneous jury instructions. Brief for Appellee at 25 n. 7. Defendants

3

raise evidentiary objections as well as a qualified immunity defense. Brief for Appellants at 56–65. We decline to address any issues beyond the scope of those that we asked the district court to reconsider. We do note with approval, however, the district court’s rejection of Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. As the district court said, “there was no uncertainty—nor is there any now, following Ceballos—that a public employee speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern is entitled to the protections of the First Amendment.... Ceballos did not establish a new right; it only narrowed the scope of an existing one. Freitag’s First Amendment right to contact the director of the CDC, a state senator, and the Inspector General as a concerned citizen were clearly established during the relevant time period, and Defendants could not have reasonably believed that their actions against Freitag were lawful.” Freitag v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections, 2007 WL 1670307 (N.D.Cal. June 6, 2007), at *5.
End of Document
4

 
 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4

5 DEANNA L. FREITAG,

6

Plaintiff,

7

v.

8 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
9
Defendants. 10

NO. C00-2278 TEH
ORDER TERMINATING MONITORING OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11

12

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant California Department of

13 Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR’s”) motion to terminate the injunction or,

14 alternatively, to modify the injunction-monitoring process in this case. After carefully

15 reviewing the parties’ papers and the record, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN

16 PART the CDCR’s motion. As discussed below, the Court will not terminate the injunction

17 in its entirety, but Plaintiff Deanna Freitag’s counsel will no longer be entitled to monitor the

18 injunction.

19

There is no dispute that the policies required by the Court’s July 16, 2004 order were

20 timely implemented at Pelican Bay State Prison and have since been codified at sections

21 3000, 3315, 3323, and 3341.5 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and

22 incorporated as Chapter 5, Article 25 of the CDCR’s Department Operations Manual.

23 Moreover, eight years of monitoring by Freitag’s counsel – four of which were done

24 concurrently with a special master appointed by this Court in Madrid v. Cate, Case

25 No. 90-3094 TEH, a case concerning inmates’ rights at Pelican Bay – have resulted in no

26 disputes over the CDCR’s implementation of this Court’s orders. Indeed, in a related case,

27 Freitag’s counsel credited the injunctive relief in this case with reducing the number of

28 reported instances of indecent exposure at Pelican Bay. Pls.’ Revised Mot. for Class Cert. in

1 Berndt v. CDCR, Case No. 03-3174 PJH, at 17 n.16 (Docket No. 430) (“One strong

2 indication of the need for system-wide injunctive relief is the contrast between the relative

3 decline in reported incidents at Pelican Bay since it has been subject to an injunction and the

4 lack of significant decline at CSP-Sacramento, CSP-Corcoran, and CSP Salinas, which are

5 not under an injunction.”).

6

Freitag has presented no evidence of any ongoing discrimination or retaliation at

7 Pelican Bay against herself, and, while Plaintiff’s opposition cites 2007 and 2008

8 declarations from two other Pelican Bay guards, the CDCR correctly observes that these

9 guards’ subsequent deposition testimony supports the department’s position. See, e.g.,

10 Michelson Dep. at 82:17-83:24 (stating that she has not witnessed any indecent exposure

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 incidents since 2005 or 2006); id. at 114:16-124:15 (acknowledging that in-service training

12 bulletins are required reading, and that various bulletins included indecent exposure policies

13 and invitations to comment); Stanton Dep. at 42:8-48:18 (acknowledging that she “probably”

14 or “likely” read in-service training bulletins that included information on indecent exposure

15 although she did not remember them, and that she never wondered about the Pelican Bay

16 Indecent Exposure Review Committee schedule because she did not care); id. at 52:5-12

17 (agreeing that “indecent exposure incidents” have not been an “area of concern” for her since

18 1999). Similarly, a third Pelican Bay guard who had provided a declaration in support of the

19 plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in Berndt withdrew her declaration; she testified at

20 her deposition that it was correct that she had “no complaints about how the Department of

21 Corrections and Rehabilitation is addressing and managing inmates and indecent exposure at

22 Pelican Bay prison.” Chisman Dep. at 25:18-22.1 There is also no other evidence that the

23 CDCR has violated the permanent injunction entered by the Court on August 18, 2003:

24

The California Department of Corrections, its agents, officers,

successors in office, employees and all persons acting in concert

25

26

1The depositions of Michelson, Stanton, and Chisman were taken in conjunction with

27

the Berndt case, and the transcripts were filed as Exhibits 10-12 to the December 23, 2009 Harlan Declaration in that case (Docket No. 281-11). They were referred to, but not

28

electronically filed, as Exhibit 5 to the May 25, 2012 Harlan Declaration in this case (Docket No. 645).

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

or participating with the department are permanently enjoined

from engaging in any employment practices, or taking any other

2

personnel action, for the purpose or with the effect of maintaining

a sexually hostile work environment at Pelican Bay State Prison,

3

or otherwise discriminating against any Pelican Bay State Prison

employee on the basis of sex. The California Department of

4

Corrections, its agents, officers, successors in office, employees

and all persons acting in concert or participating with the

5

department are further enjoined from engaging in any

employment practices, or taking any other personnel action, for

6

the purpose or with the effect of retaliating against any Pelican

Bay State Prison employee for complaining about, or otherwise

7

opposing, practices made unlawful by Title VII.

8 Aug. 18, 2003 Order at 8 (Docket No. 355).

9

Nonetheless, CDCR has cited no authority that compliance with a permanent

10 injunction ordered by a court upon a finding that a defendant violated Title VII is grounds for

11 terminating such an injunction. The Court therefore denies the CDCR’s motion to terminate

12 the injunction in its entirety.

13

However, Freitag’s counsel’s failure to identify for the CDCR or the Court any

14 violations of the injunctive relief during eight years of monitoring indicates the

15 ineffectiveness of such monitoring. In their papers opposing the CDCR’s motion to

16 terminate, Freitag’s counsel raised – for the first time – several concerns with the

17 implementation of the injunction. In some cases, however, this is mere speculation. E.g.,

18 Moore Decl. ¶ 23 (Docket No. 662) (“It appears to me that requiring staff to seek supervisory

19 approval to attend the meetings may have ‘a chilling effect’ on their participation.”); id. ¶ 26

20 (“Given that Warden Lewis asserts that ‘by August 2007, Pelican Bay had become a hub for

21 [indecent exposure] inmates’ I would have expected to see a surge in reports sometime in

22 2007 and 2008 [but did not].”). In others, it is vague and indicates counsel’s unwillingness to

23 take action even when they have concerns. For example, Jane Bond Moore asserted that she

24 has unspecified “questions concerning various CDCR forms and procedures which cannot be

25 answered by Ms. [Pamela] Price [Freitag’s lead counsel from the inception of this lawsuit],

26 or while she was at the Firm, Attorney Terina Williams [one of Ms. Price’s former

27 associates],” but that she refused to approach Defendants’ counsel with these questions

28 because she “believ[ed] that not only would [Defendants’ counsel] deny any request,” but

3

1 that she would “have to listen to a detailed legal argument before being told ‘no.’” Id. ¶ 18.2

2 Many of the expressed concerns are also dated. E.g., id. ¶ 24B (“This seemed to be a specific

3 problem in 2010.”); id. ¶ 26 (speculative problem in 2007 and 2008); id. ¶ 27 (“This appears

4 to have been a significant problem in 2010.”). Monitoring that does not result in timely

5 identification of potential problems – and sharing those concerns with the opposing party

6 and/or the Court so that any necessary corrective action can be taken – is ineffective and

7 serves no purpose, particularly after eight years of monitoring with no reported instances of

8 noncompliance. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to discontinue monitoring of the

9 injunction by Freitag’s counsel. In addition, because the Madrid case has been terminated,

10 all provisions of the injunctive relief in this case concerning the plaintiffs’ counsel and

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

11 Special Master in Madrid are also terminated.

12

Finally, the CDCR requests that the Court deny all monitoring fees from January 2012

13 to the present. The Court denies this request. As the Court made clear in July 2009:

14

1. The injunctive relief in this case shall remain in full effect

unless and until the Court otherwise orders. The Court

15

will not so order unless good cause exists following a

motion by one or more parties. If Defendants seek to

16

terminate the injunction or modify it such that counsel’s

participation in monitoring shall be disallowed, they shall

17

file an appropriate motion requesting such relief.

18

2. As long as the injunction remains in place unmodified,

Plaintiff[] shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’

19

fees pursuant to the procedure agreed upon by the parties

and set forth on page 2 of their June 29, 2009 joint

20

statement.

21 July 2, 2009 Order (Docket No. 580). The CDCR chose not to file a motion to terminate or

22 modify the injunctive relief until three years later, and Freitag’s counsel’s entitlement to

23 monitoring fees has not been extinguished until this order. However, the Court has also

24 made clear that “any time spent opposing the CDCR’s motion [to terminate or modify the

25 injunction] will not be automatically compensable as monitoring fees, and Freitag’s counsel

26 will bear the burden of demonstrating entitlement to any fees and costs she might claim for

27

2Ms. Moore began work on this case in March 2012. Moore Decl. ¶ 10. That she had

28

questions that Ms. Price could not answer after eight years of monitoring further underscores the ineffectiveness of monitoring by Freitag’s counsel.

4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 opposing the motion, including any time spent by an associate attorney.” June 6, 2012 Order

2 at 1-2 (Docket No. 653). The parties are ordered to meet and confer to attempt to resolve all

3 outstanding requests for fees and costs by Freitag’s counsel. As previously noted:

4

the parties have ignored the Court’s repeated reminders that “[a]

request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major

5

litigation.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The

disputes at issue in this motion, as well as in previous ones,

6

appear to be largely the result of personal animosity between

counsel, and the Court will no longer expend its resources or

7

those of a magistrate judge on resolving such disputes.

Consequently, if the Court denies Defendants’ pending motion to

8

terminate the injunction, thereby continuing Plaintiff’s right to

recover monitoring fees, the Court will at that time also appoint a

9

special master, whose fees shall be paid by the parties, to resolve

all future disputes over attorneys’ fees and costs that counsel

10

cannot resolve independently.

11 June 1, 2012 Order at 6-7 (Docket No. 649). If the parties are unable to resolve the final

12 request for fees and costs, then the Court will appoint a special master. The parties shall file

13 a joint report on whether such an appointment is necessary, or whether fees and costs have

14 been resolved, on or before December 17, 2012.

15

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

18 Dated: 11/05/12 19

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 
 10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
CLOSED,E-Filing,EXHIBITS,REFDIS,REFR&R-BZ,REFSET-NC,RELATE
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:00-cv-02278-TEH

Freitag v. CDC, et al

Date Filed: 06/27/2000

Assigned to: Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Date Terminated: 03/10/2010

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

Jury Demand: Both

Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins (Settlement) Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other

Demand: $0

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Case in other court: U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, 07-

16200

Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag

represented by Pamela Yvette Price Law Ofﬁces of Pamela Y. Price P.O. Box 5843 Oakland, CA 94605 510-452-0292 Fax: 510-452-5625 Email: pamela@pypesq.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Stephen Ralston P.O. Box 1143 Mi Wuk Village, CA 95346-1143 (209) 586-2370 Fax: (209) 729-5800 Email: csralston@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Curtis E. Allen 1840 Gateway Drive Suite 235 San Mateo, CA 94404 650 868 6620 Fax: 650 362 1864 Email: curtis.e.allen.esq@gmail.com TERMINATED: 10/09/2001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeshawna Rochea Harrell Oakland, CA 94601 510-541-1840 Email: jeshawna@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

John L. Burris The Law Ofﬁces of John L. Burris
1/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF

Airport Corporate Centre 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, CA 94621 510-839-5200 Fax: 510-839-3882 Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maria Couri Lahood Price and Associates 1617 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94612 510-452-0292 Fax: 510-452-5625 TERMINATED: 02/19/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terina Marie Williams Price And Associates 901 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94607 510-452-0292 Fax: 510-452-5625 Email: twilliams@pypesq.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Robert J. Ayers, Jr.

represented by Bill Lockyer CA Attorney General's Ofﬁce 1515 Clay St 20th Flr Oakland, CA 94612-1413 510-622-2100 TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Damon Mathew Connolly Law Ofﬁces of Damon M. Connolly 790 Mission Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 415-485-2200 Email: damon@damonconnollylaw.com TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Allen Ofﬁce of the Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 95814

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

2/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF

916-327-4852 Email: kathryn.allen@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regina Jaynell Brown , CA Attorney General's Ofﬁce 1515 Clay St 20th Flr Oakland, CA 94612-1413

510-622-2100 Fax: 510-622-2177 Email: Regina.Brown@doj.ca.gov TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Lee Manford Ofﬁce of the Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 324-5367 Fax: (916) 324-5567 Email: dick.manford@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob A. Appelsmith Attorney General's Ofﬁce 1300 I Street, Ste. 125 PO Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 916-324 5367 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lyn Harlan Attorney General's Ofﬁce 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor P.O. Box 70550 Oakland, CA 94612-0550 510/622 2208 Email: lyn.harlan@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marybelle Archibald CA State Attorney General's Ofﬁce 1300 I St Ste 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 916-445-1685 TERMINATED: 02/09/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

3/64

10/24/2017
Defendant Teresa Schwartz

CAND-ECF

Vincent John Scally Ofﬁce of the Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 324-5468 Fax: (916) 324-5567 Email: vincent.scally@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Bill Lockyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Damon Mathew Connolly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regina Jaynell Brown , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Lee Manford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob A. Appelsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lyn Harlan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marybelle Archibald (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

Vincent John Scally (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
4/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF

Defendant David A. Carmichael

represented by Bill Lockyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Damon Mathew Connolly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regina Jaynell Brown , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Lee Manford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob A. Appelsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant G. Rodman

Marybelle Archibald (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lockyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Damon Mathew Connolly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

Kathryn Allen (See above for address)
5/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regina Jaynell Brown , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Lee Manford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob A. Appelsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Paul Dillard

Marybelle Archibald (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lockyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Damon Mathew Connolly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regina Jaynell Brown , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Lee Manford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

Jacob A. Appelsmith (See above for address)
6/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Barry O'Neill

Marybelle Archibald (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lockyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Damon Mathew Connolly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regina Jaynell Brown , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Lee Manford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob A. Appelsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant George Neotti

Marybelle Archibald (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lockyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

Damon Mathew Connolly (See above for address)
7/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF

(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regina Jaynell Brown , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Lee Manford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob A. Appelsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Auggie Lopez

Marybelle Archibald (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lockyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Damon Mathew Connolly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regina Jaynell Brown , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

Richard Lee Manford
8/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob A. Appelsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant California Department of Corrections

Marybelle Archibald (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lockyer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Damon Mathew Connolly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Allen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regina Jaynell Brown , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Lee Manford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob A. Appelsmith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lyn Harlan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

Marybelle Archibald (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
9/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
Vincent John Scally (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

06/27/2000

1 COMPLAINT no Summons(es) issued; Fee status pd entered on 6/27/00 in the amount of $ 150.00 ( Receipt No. 4401904); jury demand [3:00-cv-02278] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/27/2000)

06/27/2000

2 ORDER RE COURT PROCEDURE and SCHEDULE (ADR Multi-Option) by Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James : Proof of service to be ﬁled by 8/11/00 ; counsels' case management statement to be ﬁled by 10/16/00 ; initial case management conference will be held at 10:00am on 10/26/00 . (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/27/2000)

07/28/2000

3 AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/2000)

08/11/2000

4 PROOF OF SERVICE of ADR Multi-Option Program order [2-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/14/2000)

08/14/2000

5 RETURN OF SERVICE unexecuted - original summons returned [3:00-cv-02278] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/17/2000)

08/29/2000

6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James by CDC, Robert J. Ayers Jr., Teresa Schwartz, David A. Carmichael, G. Rodman, Paul Dillard, Barry O'Neill, George Neotti, Auggie Lopez to dismiss case with Notice set for 10/5/00 at 10:00am [3:00-cv02278] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/29/2000)

08/29/2000

7 DECLINATION to proceed before magistrate by CDC, Robert J. Ayers Jr., Teresa Schwartz, David A. Carmichael, G. Rodman, Paul Dillard, Barry O'Neill, George Neotti, Auggie Lopez [3:00-cv-02278] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/30/2000)

08/30/2000

8 DECLINATION to proceed before magistrate by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv02278] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/30/2000)

08/31/2000

9 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of Magistrate order [7-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

09/06/2000

10 ORDER by Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James of impending reassignment to a United States District Judge () (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/2000)

09/12/2000

11 ORDER by Executive Committee Case reassigned to Judge Thelton E. Henderson referred to Judge Thelton E. Henderson the motion to dismiss case [6-1] () (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/13/2000)

09/26/2000

12 AMENDED NOTICE of hearing by defendant CDC, defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez setting motion to dismiss case [6-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 11/6/00 [3:00cv-02278] (lal, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/2000)

09/26/2000

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant CDC, defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

10/64

10/24/2017
10/03/2000 10/17/2000 10/17/2000 10/23/2000
10/23/2000
10/26/2000 11/08/2000 11/08/2000 11/16/2000
11/17/2000 11/28/2000 12/18/2000 01/17/2001
01/19/2001 01/24/2001 01/26/2001

CAND-ECF
Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez ) re: motion to dismiss case [6-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (lal, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/2000)
13 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 10:00 11/6/00 ; [3:00-cv02278] (lal, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/2000)
14 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag motion to dismiss case [6-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (lal, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/17/2000)
15 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion to dismiss case [6-1] [3:00-cv02278] (lal, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/17/2000)
16 REPLY by defendant CDC, defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez to opposition to motion to dismiss case [6-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (lal, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/25/2000)
17 OBJECTIONS by defendant CDC, defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez to opposition [15-1], request [14-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (lal, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/25/2000)
18 CLERK'S NOTICE All motions will be heard by 2:00 11/16/00 ; Case Management Conference set for 2:00 11/16/00 ; [3:00-cv-02278] (lal, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/26/2000)
RECEIVED Proposed Order re case management statement( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
19 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER ﬁled by Plaintiff Eeanna L. Freitag. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
20 MINUTES: ( C/R Leo Mankiewicz) ( Hearing Date: 11/16/00) granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss case [6-1] Case Management Conference set for 1:30 2/5/01 ;See minute order for long explanation of instructions [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/21/2000)
ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Regina J. Brown, Damon M. Connolly, Bill Lockyer [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
Telephone conference with ADR director :MRA [3:00-cv-02278] (mra, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/28/2000)
RECEIVED ﬁrst amended complaint submitted by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/21/2000)
21 ANSWER by defendant CDC, defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct to complaint [3-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/18/2001)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) stipulation re ADR [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/22/2001)
22 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : referring to ADR (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
23 SECOND JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER ﬁled. [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered:

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

11/64

10/24/2017
02/02/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 03/16/2001 06/08/2001
07/18/2001 08/10/2001 08/15/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001

01/31/2001)

CAND-ECF

24 NOTICE of entry by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag, of [22-2] order [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/05/2001)

25 MINUTES: ( C/R Kathy Wyatt) INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD. Discovery cutoff 1/7/02 ; All motions will be ﬁled by 2/6/02 ; Pre-trial conference will be held 3:00 4/8/02 ; All motions hearing date 3/11/02 ; Jury Trial set for 8:30 4/16/02 ; , referring case for settlement to Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2001)

26 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson Discovery cutoff set for 1/7/02 ; Deadline for all motion ﬁlings is 2/6/02 ; All motions will be heard by 3/11/02 ; Pretrial conference set for 3:00 4/8/02 ; Jury trial will be held 8:30 4/16/02 ; ( Date Entered: 2/8/01) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2001)

27 ORDER by Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James Settlement conf. (Mag) at 2:00 1/15/02 ; ( Date Entered: 3/20/01) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

28 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Bill Lockyer for CA Dept of Correct, attorney Damon M. Connolly for CA Dept of Correct, attorney Regina J. Brown for CA Dept of Correct, attorney Bill Lockyer for Auggie Lopez, attorney Damon M. Connolly for Auggie Lopez, attorney Regina J. Brown for Auggie Lopez, attorney Bill Lockyer for George Neotti, attorney Damon M. Connolly for George Neotti, attorney Regina J. Brown for George Neotti, attorney Bill Lockyer for Barry O'Neill, attorney Damon M. Connolly for Barry O'Neill, attorney Regina J. Brown for Barry O'Neill, attorney Bill Lockyer for Paul Dillard, attorney Damon M. Connolly for Paul Dillard, attorney Regina J. Brown for Paul Dillard, attorney Bill Lockyer for G. Rodman, attorney Damon M. Connolly for G. Rodman, attorney Regina J. Brown for G. Rodman, attorney Bill Lockyer for David A. Carmichael, attorney Damon M. Connolly for David A. Carmichael, attorney Regina J. Brown for David A. Carmichael, attorney Bill Lockyer for Teresa Schwartz, attorney Damon M. Connolly for Teresa Schwartz, attorney Regina J. Brown for Teresa Schwartz, attorney Bill Lockyer for Robert J. Ayers Jr., attorney Damon M. Connolly for Robert J. Ayers Jr., attorney Regina J. Brown for Robert J. Ayers Jr., attorney Bill Lockyer for CDC, attorney Damon M. Connolly for CDC, attorney Regina J. Brown for CDC as counsel for by defendant CDC, defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct and substituting attorney Richard L. Manford, Jacob A. Appelsmith [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/11/2001)

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) conﬁdentiality stipulation [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/20/2001)

29 CONFIDENTIALITY STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/14/2001)

30 NOTICE of entry by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of [29-1] order [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/17/2001)

REFERRAL: referring case for discovery to Mag. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte [3:00-cv02278] (wh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/2001)

31 ORDER of Reference by Judge Thelton E. Henderson to a magistrate judge for discovery dispute (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/27/2001)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

12/64

10/24/2017
09/27/2001 10/17/2001 10/17/2001
10/17/2001 10/17/2001 10/17/2001 10/17/2001 10/19/2001 10/30/2001
11/14/2001 11/26/2001 11/26/2001 11/26/2001 12/28/2001 01/07/2002

CAND-ECF
32 ORDER re Discovery Procedures by Mag. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte ( Date Entered: 10/2/01) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) stipulation enlarging pretrial discovery dates [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
33 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Mag. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to compel production of documents and request for sanctions with Notice set for 11/27/01 2:00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
34 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in support of motion to compel production of documents and request for sanctions [33-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
35 DECLARATION by Maria C. LaHood on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion to compel production of documents and request for sanctions [33-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
36 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion to compel production of documents and request for sanctions [33-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion to compel production of documents and request for sanctions [33-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
37 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : enlarging pretrial discovery dates (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/23/2001)
38 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant CDC, defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct in opposition to motion to compel production of documents and request for sanctions [33-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
39 LETTER dated 11/14/01 from Pamela Y. Price to Mag. Judge Laporte [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) stipulation dropping plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery from the calendar [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
40 STIPULATION and ORDER by Mag. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte : dropping plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery from the calendar (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
Docket Modiﬁcation (Administrative) to order [40-1] vacating [33-1] motion to compel production of documents and request for sanctions [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) stipulation to continue date of mandatory settlement conference [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/02/2002)
41 STIPULATION and ORDER by Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James : Settlement conf. (Mag) at 2:00 3/26/02 ; (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/09/2002)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

13/64

10/24/2017
01/31/2002 01/31/2002 01/31/2002 02/05/2002 02/05/2002 02/05/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002
02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002

CAND-ECF
42 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag for order enlarging pretrial discovery dates [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) stipulation enlarging pretrial discovery dates [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) stipulation enlarging discovery dates [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
43 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : enlarging pretrial discovery dates (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
44 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : enlarging discovery dates (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
Docket Modiﬁcation (Administrative) to order [43-1] granting motion for order enlarging pretrial discovery dates [42-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
45 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant to amend answer with Notice set for 3/11/02 10:00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
46 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant in support of motion to amend answer [45-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
47 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant re motion to amend answer [45-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion to amend answer [45-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
48 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant for summary judgment , or in the alternative, for summary adjudication of issues with Notice set for 3/11/02 10:00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
49 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant in support of motion for summary judgment [48-1], of motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
50 DECLARATION by Barry O'Neill on behalf of defendant re motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
51 DECLARATION by Paul Dillard on behalf of defendant re motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
52 DECLARATION by Ronald Willis Julian Case on behalf of defendant re motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
53 DECLARATION by Augustin Lopez on behalf of defendant re motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
54 DECLARATION by George A. Neotti on behalf of defendant re motion for summary

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

14/64

10/24/2017
02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/19/2002
02/19/2002 02/19/2002 02/19/2002 02/19/2002 02/19/2002

CAND-ECF
judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
55 FIRST DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant re motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
56 SECOND DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant re motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
57 THIRD DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant re motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
58 DECLARATION by David A. Carmichael on behalf of defendant re motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
59 DECLARATION by Teresa Schwartz on behalf of defendant re motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
60 DECLARATION by Glen L. Rodman on behalf of defendant re motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
61 DECLARATION by Robert J. Ayers, Jr. on behalf of defendant re motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion for summary judgment [48-1], re: motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
62 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Mag. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories with Notice set for 3/26/02 2:00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
63 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Mag. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag for order shortening time for hearing of motion to compel [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
64 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in support of motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories [62-1] [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
65 DECLARATION by Emmeline Thompson on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories [62-1] [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
66 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories [62-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories [62-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/2002)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

15/64

10/24/2017
02/19/2002

CAND-ECF
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) shortening time [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/2002)

02/19/2002

67 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of motion for order shortening time for hearing of motion to compel [63-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/2002)

02/19/2002

68 NOTICE of entry by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of [44-1] order [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/2002)

02/19/2002

69 NOTICE of entry by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of [43-1] order [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/2002)

02/20/2002

70 ORDER by Mag. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte granting motion for order shortening time for hearing of motion to compel [63-1] ( Date Entered: 2/27/02) (cc: all counsel) [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/27/2002)

02/21/2002

71 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag for order extending the time to ﬁle opposition to motion for summary judgment [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/27/2002)

02/21/2002

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion for order extending the time to ﬁle opposition to motion for summary judgment [71-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/27/2002)

02/22/2002

72 STATEMENT by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct in support of memorandum [49-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/2002)

02/22/2002

73 DECLARATION by Marybelle D. Archibald on behalf of defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct re statement [72-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/2002)

02/25/2002

74 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting motion for order extending the time to ﬁle opposition to motion for summary judgment [71-1], setting hearing on motion for summary judgment [48-1] 10:00 3/25/02, setting hearing on motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] 10:00 3/25/02, setting hearing on motion to amend answer [45-1] 10:00 3/25/02; vacating currently scheduled trial and PT dates , Case Management Conference set for 10:00 3/25/02 ; ( Date Entered: 2/28/02) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/2002)

02/25/2002

75 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion for summary judgment [48-1], motion for summary adjudication of issues [482] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/2002)

02/25/2002

76 DECLARATION by Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/2002)

02/25/2002

77 DECLARATION by Ken Katsaris on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/2002)

02/25/2002

78 DECLARATION by Melissa Cruse on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

16/64

10/24/2017
02/25/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002
02/27/2002 02/27/2002 02/27/2002 02/27/2002 02/27/2002
03/05/2002 03/05/2002 03/05/2002 03/08/2002 03/08/2002 03/08/2002

CAND-ECF
[48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
79 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
80 DECLARATION by Monique Beaver on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
81 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
82 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant CA Dept of Correct in opposition to motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories [62-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/01/2002)
83 AMENDED MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion for summary judgment [48-1], motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/01/2002)
84 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant CA Dept of Correct in partial opposition to motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories [62-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/01/2002)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion for summary judgment [48-1], re: motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/01/2002)
85 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of declaration [81-1], declaration [80-1], declaration [79-1], declaration [78-1], declaration [77-1], declaration [76-1], opposition memorandum [75-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/01/2002)
86 REPLY BRIEF by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories [62-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
87 STATEMENT of Disputed Discovery by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in support of motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories [62-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
88 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories [621] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
89 CLERK'S NOTICE setting hearing on motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories [62-1] 9:30 3/12/02 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
90 OBJECTIONS by defendant to and MOTIONS to Strike late-ﬁled documents submitted in opposition memorandum [83-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
91 REPLY by defendant in support motion for summary judgment [48-1], re motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/12/2002)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

17/64

10/24/2017
03/08/2002 03/08/2002 03/08/2002 03/08/2002 03/08/2002 03/18/2002 03/19/2002 03/20/2002 03/21/2002 03/21/2002 03/25/2002
03/25/2002
03/26/2002
04/09/2002 04/09/2002

CAND-ECF
92 DECLARATION by Augustin Lopez on behalf of defendant in reply to opposition memorandum [83-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
93 DECLARATION by George A. Neotti on behalf of defendant in reply to opposition memorandum [83-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
94 DECLARATION by Robert J. Ayers, Jr. on behalf of defendant in reply to opposition memorandum [83-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
95 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant opposing plaintiff's request to deny motion for summary judgment/adjudication [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
96 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant re objection [90-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
97 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in response for order to show cause [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/21/2002)
98 LETTER dated 3/18/02 from Richard L. Manford to Mag. Judge James requesting that the settlement conference be taken off calendar [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
99 STATEMENT of recent decision by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for summary judgment [48-1], in support of motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2] [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
100 MINUTES: (C/R Jeanne Bishop) (Hearing Date: 3/12/02) Granting in part and denying in part motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories [62-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
101 ORDER by Mag. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte re [62-1] compelling further production of documents and answers to interrogatories. (Date Entered: 3/22/02) (cc: all counsel) [3:00cv-02278] (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
102 ORDER for PRETRIAL PREPARATION: by Judge Thelton E. Henderson Discovery cutoff 10/28/02 ; All motions will be ﬁled by 11/12/02 ; All motions hearing date 10:00 12/23/02 ; Pre-trial conference will be held 3:00 1/27/03 ; Jury Trial set for 8:30 2/11/03 ; . Est.trial days: 10 (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/28/2002)
103 MINUTES: ( C/R Diane Skillman) ( Hearing Date: 3/25/02) granting in part and denying in part motion for summary judgment [48-1], granting in part and denying in part motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2], granting motion to amend answer [45-1] Discovery cutoff set for 10/28/02 ; Deadline for all motion ﬁlings is 11/12/02 ; All motions will be heard by 10:00 12/23/02 ; Pretrial conference set for 3:00 1/27/03 ; Jury trial will be held 8:30 2/11/03 ; , continue settlement with Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/28/2002)
104 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting in part and denying in part motion for summary judgment [48-1], granting in part and denying in part motion for summary adjudication of issues [48-2], granting motion to amend answer [45-1] ( Date Entered: 3/28/02) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/28/2002)
105 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag for leave to ﬁle motion for reconsideration of order dismissing equal protection claims [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/12/2002)
106 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag motion for leave to

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

18/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
ﬁle motion for reconsideration of order dismissing equal protection claims [105-1] [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

04/09/2002

107 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for leave to ﬁle motion for reconsideration of order dismissing equal protection claims [105-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

04/09/2002

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion for leave to ﬁle motion for reconsideration of order dismissing equal protection claims [105-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

04/12/2002

108 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson vacating hearing re motion for leave to ﬁle motion for reconsideration of order dismissing equal protection claims [105-1] ( Date Entered: 4/15/02) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/15/2002)

04/15/2002

109 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag for leave to ﬁle third amended complaint with Notice set for 5/20/02 10:00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/16/2002)

04/15/2002

110 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for leave to ﬁle third amended complaint [109-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/16/2002)

04/15/2002

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion for leave to ﬁle third amended complaint [109-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/16/2002)

04/26/2002

111 NOTICE of hearing by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag setting motion for leave to ﬁle third amended complaint [109-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 6/3/02 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/03/2002)

05/02/2002

112 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting motion for leave to ﬁle motion for reconsideration of order dismissing equal protection claims [105-1] ( Date Entered: 5/8/02) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/08/2002)

05/13/2002

113 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for leave to ﬁle third amended complaint [109-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/15/2002)

05/13/2002

114 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct re opposition [113-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/15/2002)

05/13/2002

115 DECLARATION by Joseph F. Barbara on behalf of defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct re opposition [113-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/15/2002)

05/13/2002

116 DECLARATION by Andrea R. Austin on behalf of defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct re opposition [113-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/15/2002)

05/20/2002

118 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag for reconsideration of order dismissing equal protection claims [3:00-

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

19/64

10/24/2017
05/20/2002 05/20/2002 05/20/2002 05/20/2002 05/22/2002 05/29/2002 06/03/2002
07/08/2002 07/22/2002 07/25/2002 10/28/2002 10/28/2002 12/02/2002 12/05/2002 12/05/2002
01/02/2003

CAND-ECF
cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
119 REPLY BRIEF by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for leave to ﬁle third amended complaint [109-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
120 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag motion for reconsideration of order dismissing equal protection claims [118-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
121 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for leave to ﬁle third amended complaint [109-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion for reconsideration of order dismissing equal protection claims [118-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
117 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [3-1] by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag; jury demand (document originally received on 12/18/00) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
122 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting in part and denying in part motion for leave to ﬁle third amended complaint [109-1] ( Date Entered: 6/3/02) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/03/2002)
123 POINTS and AUTHORITIES by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant David A. Carmichael, defendant G. Rodman, defendant Paul Dillard, defendant Barry O'Neill, defendant George Neotti, defendant Auggie Lopez in opposition to motion for reconsideration of order dismissing equal protection claims [118-1] [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
RECEIVED letter from Pamela Price re continuation of settlement conference from 3/26/02 to 10/28/02 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/12/2002)
124 NOTICE of Unavailability by Pamela Price [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
125 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying motion for reconsideration of order dismissing equal protection claims [118-1] ( Date Entered: 7/30/02) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/30/2002)
126 LETTER dated 10/25/02 from Richard L. Manford, Pamela Y. Price continuing settlement conference to 12/18/02 at 2:00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/31/2002)
Docket Modiﬁcation (Administrative) to letter [126-1] Settlement conf. (Mag) at 2:00 12/18/02 ; [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/31/2002)
127 LETTER dated 12/2/02 from Richard L. Manford to Mag. Judge James [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
128 LETTER dated 12/4/02 from Pamela Y. Price to Mag. Judge James re appearance at the settlement conference [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
129 ORDER by Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James: GRANTING dfts' request that individual defendants be excused from personally appearing; DENYING pla's request to be excused from personally appearing at the settlement conference ( Date Entered: 12/11/02) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
130 CLERK'S NOTICE Pretrial conference set for 10:00 1/30/03 ; [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe,

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

20/64

10/24/2017
01/03/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003
01/21/2003 01/21/2003
01/21/2003
01/21/2003
01/21/2003
01/21/2003
01/21/2003
01/21/2003

CAND-ECF
COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
131 STATEMENT of meet and confer re preparation of joint PTC statement and settlement by Plaintiff, defendant [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
132 Joint Proposed Special JURY INSTRUCTIONS submitted by Plaintiff, defendant [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
133 Joint Proposed Ninth Circuit Model Civil JURY INSTRUCTIONS submitted by Plaintiff, defendant [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
134 JOINT PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
135 Joint STATEMENT re the proposed jury instruction meet and confer by Plaintiff, defendant [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
136 DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESS Carol Hyland, rehabilitation consultant by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
137 DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESS, Richard A. Palﬁn, Ph.D. by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
138 Proposed Special JURY INSTRUCTIONS submitted by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
139 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of jury [138-1], notice [137-1], notice [136-1], statement [135-1], report [134-1], jury [133-1], jury [132-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
140 AMENDED JOINT PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
141 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in limine no. 1 to preclude dft CDC from offering evidence of remedial measures [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
142 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in limine no. 2 to exclude evidence of pre-9/98 complaints and involvement in Jose Garcia case [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
143 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in limine no. 3 to exclude internal affairs reports [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
144 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in limine no. 4 to exclude evidence of workers compensation claims [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
145 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in limine no. 5 to preclude "sweetheart" cross-examinations [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
146 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in limine no. 6 to exclude defense expert Tod Roy [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
147 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in limine no. 7 to exclude defense expert Carl M. Larson [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

21/64

10/24/2017
01/21/2003

CAND-ECF
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) association of counsel [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

148 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of motion in limine no. 7 to exclude defense expert Carl M. Larson [147-1], motion in limine no. 6 to exclude defense expert Tod Roy [146-1], motion in limine no. 4 to exclude evidence of workers compensation claims [144-1], motion in limine no. 3 to exclude internal affairs reports [143-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003 149 Proposed Special Verdict Form by defendant [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003 150 Proposed Special Instructions by defendant [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

151 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant in limine no. 3 to exclude from evidence lay opinion testimony by other female correctional ofﬁcers [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

152 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant in limine no. 5 to exclude from evidence alleged comment by defendant Rodman [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion in limine no. 5 to exclude from evidence alleged comment by defendant Rodman [152-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

153 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant in limine no. 6 to exclude from evidence alleged comment by defendant Lopez [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion in limine no. 6 to exclude from evidence alleged comment by defendant Lopez [153-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

154 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant in limine no. 7 to exclude from evidence allegations by plaintiff concerning certain events [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion in limine no. 7 to exclude from evidence allegations by plaintiff concerning certain events [154-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

155 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant in limine no. 8 to exclude from evidence speciﬁc acts of alleged adverse employment action [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

156 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant re motion in limine no. 8 to exclude from evidence speciﬁc acts of alleged adverse employment action [155-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion in limine no. 8 to exclude from evidence speciﬁc acts of alleged adverse employment action [155-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

157 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant in limine no. 9 to exclude from evidence anonymous statement [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion in limine no. 9 to exclude from

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

22/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
evidence anonymous statement [157-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

158 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant in limine no. 11 to exclude from evidence drawings made by inmate Wheeler [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion in limine no. 11 to exclude from evidence drawings made by inmate Wheeler [158-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

159 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant in limine to exclude from evidence the 2/23/00 inmate riot [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

160 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant re motion in limine to exclude from evidence the 2/23/00 inmate riot [159-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion in limine to exclude from evidence the 2/23/00 inmate riot [159-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

161 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant in limine to exclude from evidence investigation report prepared by CA Ofﬁce of Inspector General [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion in limine to exclude from evidence investigation report prepared by CA Ofﬁce of Inspector General [161-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

162 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant in limine to exclude from evidence plaintiff's performance evaluation of January 2000 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

163 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant re motion in limine to exclude from evidence plaintiff's performance evaluation of January 2000 [162-1] [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion in limine to exclude from evidence plaintiff's performance evaluation of January 2000 [162-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

164 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant in limine to exclude from evidence non-conﬁrmation by CA Senate of Robert L. Ayers, Jr. [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

165 DECLARATION by Robert L. Ayers, Jr. on behalf of defendant re motion in limine to exclude from evidence non-conﬁrmation by CA Senate of Robert L. Ayers, Jr. [164-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion in limine to exclude from evidence non-conﬁrmation by CA Senate of Robert L. Ayers, Jr. [164-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003

166 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant in limine to exclude from evidence opinion testimony by expert witness W. Ken Katsaris [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

01/21/2003 167 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant re motion in limine to

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

23/64

10/24/2017
01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003
01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003

CAND-ECF
exclude from evidence opinion testimony by expert witness W. Ken Katsaris [166-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion in limine to exclude from evidence opinion testimony by expert witness W. Ken Katsaris [166-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
168 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of notice [150-1], notice [149-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
169 NOTICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of association of attorney John L. Burris [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
170 MOTION by non-parties before Judge Thelton E. Henderson to quash subpoena [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
171 DECLARATION by Anthony Lewis re motion to quash subpoena [170-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( ) re: motion to quash subpoena [170-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
172 MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson to shorten time on motion to quash subpoena [170-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
173 DECLARATION by Nancy A. Beninati re motion to shorten time on motion to quash subpoena [170-1] [172-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( ) re: motion to shorten time on motion to quash subpoena [170-1] [172-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
174 PROOF OF SERVICE of declaration [173-1], order received [0-0], motion to shorten time on motion to quash subpoena [170-1] [172-1], order received [0-0], declaration [1711], motion to quash subpoena [170-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
175 Statement by defendant in NON-Opposition to motion in limine no. 5 to preclude "sweetheart" cross-examinations [145-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
176 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion in limine no. 1 to preclude dft CDC from offering evidence of remedial measures [141-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
177 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion in limine no. 2 to exclude evidence of pre-9/98 complaints and involvement in Jose Garcia case [142-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
178 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion in limine no. 3 to exclude internal affairs reports [143-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
179 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion in limine no. 4 to exclude evidence of workers compensation claims [144-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
180 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion in limine no. 6 to exclude defense expert Tod Roy [146-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
181 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion in limine no. 7 to exclude defense expert Carl M. Larson [147-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/2003)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

24/64

10/24/2017
01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003
01/28/2003 01/28/2003
01/29/2003
01/29/2003

CAND-ECF
182 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion in limine no. 3 to exclude from evidence lay opinion testimony by other female correctional ofﬁcers [151-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
183 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion in limine no. 5 to exclude from evidence alleged comment by defendant Rodman [152-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
184 Statement by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in NON-Opposition to motion in limine no. 6 to exclude from evidence alleged comment by defendant Lopez [153-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
185 Statement by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in NON-Opposition to motion in limine no. 7 to exclude from evidence allegations by plaintiff concerning certain events [154-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
186 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion in limine no. 8 to exclude from evidence speciﬁc acts of alleged adverse employment action [155-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
187 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion in limine no. 9 to exclude from evidence anonymous statement [157-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
188 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion in limine no. 11 to exclude from evidence drawings made by inmate Wheeler [158-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
189 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion in limine to exclude from evidence the 2/23/00 inmate riot [159-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
190 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion in limine to exclude from evidence opinion testimony by expert witness W. Ken Katsaris [166-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
191 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion in limine to exclude from evidence opinion testimony by expert witness W. Ken Katsaris [166-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
192 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion in limine to exclude from evidence investigation report prepared by CA Ofﬁce of Inspector General [161-1] [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
193 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of opposition [192-1], declaration [191-1], opposition [190-1], opposition [189-1], opposition [188-1], opposition [187-1], opposition [186-1], opposition statement [185-1], opposition statement [184-1], opposition [183-1], opposition [182-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
194 Supplemetal DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion in limine to exclude from evidence opinion testimony by expert witness W. Ken Katsaris [166-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
195 Amended Witness List submitted by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/30/2003)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

25/64

10/24/2017
01/29/2003

CAND-ECF
196 AMENDMENT by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion in limine no. 2 to exclude evidence of pre-9/98 complaints and involvement in Jose Garcia case [142-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/04/2003)

01/30/2003

197 Statement by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in NON-Opposition to motion in limine to exclude from evidence non-conﬁrmation by CA Senate of Robert L. Ayers, Jr. [164-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/06/2003)

01/30/2003

198 Statement by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in NON-Opposition to motion in limine to exclude from evidence plaintiff's performance evaluation of January 2000 [162-1] [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/06/2003)

01/30/2003 199 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of list [195-1], declaration [194-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/06/2003)

01/30/2003 200 Proposed Special JURY INSTRUCTION No. 21 submitted by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/06/2003)

01/30/2003 201 Amended EXHIBIT list by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr. for inclusion of joint pretrial statement [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/06/2003)

01/30/2003

202 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr. of opposition [181-1], opposition [180-1], opposition [179-1], opposition [178-1], opposition [177-1], opposition [176-1], opposition statement [175-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/06/2003)

01/30/2003 203 MINUTES: ( C/R Sahar McVickar) ( Hearing Date: 1/30/03) pretrial held [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/06/2003)

02/03/2003 204 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to defendants' request for judicial notice nos. 1-4 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/10/2003)

02/03/2003

205 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag as to defendant CDC's annual budget for Pelican Bay State Prison [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/10/2003)

02/04/2003 206 OPPOSITION by defendant to jury [138-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/10/2003)

02/04/2003 207 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of defendants' trial exhibits [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/10/2003)

02/04/2003 208 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of opposition [206-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/10/2003)

02/04/2003 209 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to defendants' proposed special jury instructions [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/10/2003)

02/04/2003 210 Plaintiff's EXHIBITS [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/10/2003)

02/06/2003

211 NOTICE of Lodging of Deposition Exhibits by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/12/2003)

02/06/2003 212 NOTICE of lodging of exhibit no. 349 by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/12/2003)

02/06/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) application for admission of and use of audiovisual equipment during trial [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/12/2003)

02/06/2003 213 Master EXHIBIT list by defendant [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered:

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

26/64

10/24/2017
02/07/2003
02/07/2003 02/07/2003
02/07/2003 02/10/2003 02/10/2003
02/11/2003 02/11/2003 02/11/2003 02/12/2003
02/14/2003

02/12/2003)

CAND-ECF

214 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson Jury trial will be held 8:30 2/25/03 ; ( Date Entered: 2/12/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/12/2003)

215 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion to quash subpoena [170-1] [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/18/2003)

216 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion to quash subpoena [170-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/18/2003)

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion to quash subpoena [170-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/18/2003)

217 LETTER dated 2/4/03 from Pamela Y. Price to Judge Henderson [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/18/2003)

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) Amended application for admission and use of audio-visual equipment during trial [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/18/2003)

218 Supplemental BRIEF FILED by non-parties regarding motion to quash subpoena [170-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/19/2003)

219 DECLARATION by Nancy A. Beninati re brief [218-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/19/2003)

220 PROOF OF SERVICE of declaration [219-1], brief [218-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/19/2003)

221 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson for admission of and use of audio-visual equipment and physical objects during trial ( Date Entered: 2/20/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/20/2003)

222 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting in part and denying in part motion in limine to exclude from evidence opinion testimony by expert witness W. Ken Katsaris [166-1], granting motion in limine to exclude from evidence non-conﬁrmation by CA Senate of Robert L. Ayers, Jr. [164-1], granting motion in limine to exclude from evidence plaintiff's performance evaluation of January 2000 [162-1], granting in part and denying in part motion in limine to exclude from evidence investigation report prepared by CA Ofﬁce of Inspector General [161-1], that the motion in limine to exclude from evidence the 2/23/00 inmate riot [159-1] is submitted, denying motion in limine no. 11 to exclude from evidence drawings made by inmate Wheeler [158-1], denying motion in limine no. 9 to exclude from evidence anonymous statement [157-1], denying motion in limine no. 8 to exclude from evidence speciﬁc acts of alleged adverse employment action [155-1], granting motion in limine no. 7 to exclude from evidence allegations by plaintiff concerning certain events [154-1], granting motion in limine no. 6 to exclude from evidence alleged comment by defendant Lopez [153-1], denying motion in limine no. 5 to exclude from evidence alleged comment by defendant Rodman [152-1], denying motion in limine no. 3 to exclude from evidence lay opinion testimony by other female correctional ofﬁcers [151-1], denying motion in limine no. 7 to exclude defense expert Carl M. Larson [147-1], that the motion in limine no. 6 to exclude defense expert Tod Roy [146-1] is submitted, granting motion in limine no. 5 to preclude "sweetheart" crossexaminations [145-1], denying motion in limine no. 4 to exclude evidence of workers compensation claims [144-1], denying motion in limine no. 3 to exclude internal affairs reports [143-1], denying motion in limine no. 2 to exclude evidence of pre-9/98

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

27/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
complaints and involvement in Jose Garcia case [142-1], denying motion in limine no. 1 to preclude dft CDC from offering evidence of remedial measures [141-1] ( Date Entered: 2/20/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/20/2003)

02/14/2003

223 MINUTES: ( C/R Joan Columbini) ( Hearing Date: 2/14/03) vacating [172-1] motion to shorten time on motion to quash subpoena [170-1], denying motion to quash subpoena [170-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/20/2003)

02/14/2003 224 Statement by defendant CA Dept of Correct in NON-Opposition to request [205-1] [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/20/2003)

02/14/2003 225 NOTICE of lodging of deposition exhibits by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/20/2003)

02/14/2003 226 Proposed VOIR DIRE questions submitted by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/20/2003)

02/14/2003 227 NOTICE of lodging of deposition exhibit by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/20/2003)

02/18/2003 228 Amended NOTICE of lodging of deposition exhibits by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/25/2003)

02/18/2003 229 NOTICE of lodging of deposition exhibit nos. 317, 319 and 325 by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/25/2003)

02/20/2003 230 Second Amended EXHIBIT list by defendant for inclusion in the joint pretrial statement [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/26/2003)

02/20/2003 231 NOTICE of entry by defendant of [221-1] order [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/26/2003)

02/21/2003 232 NOTICE of lodging of plaintiff's exhibits by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/26/2003)

02/21/2003 233 Proposed Court VOIR DIRE questions of the trial venire submitted by defendant [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/26/2003)

02/24/2003 234 Proposed Special INSTRUCTION No. 26 submitted by defendant [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/26/2003)

02/25/2003 235 NOTICE of lodging original reporters' trancripts of depositions by defendant [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/26/2003)

03/03/2003 236 NOTICE of lodging of exhibits 375 and 324-A by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/05/2003)

03/03/2003

237 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag for leave to ﬁle supplemental in limine motion no. 2 to exclude evidence of plaintiff's relationship with Jose Garcia [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/05/2003)

03/03/2003

238 Supplemental MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiff's relationship with Jose Garcia [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/05/2003)

03/03/2003

239 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag for order for admission and use of audio equipment and easel during trial [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/05/2003)

03/04/2003 240 Second Amended EXHIBIT list by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe,

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

28/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/06/2003)

03/04/2003

241 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting motion for order for admission and use of audio equipment and easel during trial [239-1] ( Date Entered: 3/6/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/06/2003)

03/04/2003

242 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/4/03) that the motion in limine to exclude from evidence the 2/23/00 inmate riot [159-1] is submitted, that the motion in limine no. 6 to exclude defense expert Tod Roy [146-1] is submitted Jury trial began ; jury voir dire, impaneled and sworn in; opening statements made [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/06/2003)

03/05/2003

243 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/5/03) Kismet Mayo, Melissa Cruse, Darla Aguirre and Ken Katsaris testiﬁed; plaintiff's exhibits #3-9 and #62 marked and admitted [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/06/2003)

03/06/2003 244 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/6/03) Dawn Melton and Deanna Freitag testiﬁed [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/07/2003)

03/07/2003 245 NOTICE of Lodging of Exhibit 608 by defendant [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/11/2003)

03/07/2003 246 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/7/03) Dr. Harry Lesch and William Ramsdell testiﬁed [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/11/2003)

03/10/2003 247 LETTER BRIEF FILED by defendant re the proposed testimony of defense expert witness Tod Roy [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/11/2003)

03/10/2003

248 SUPPLEMENT by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion in limine no. 6 to exclude defense expert Tod Roy [146-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/14/2003)

03/11/2003

249 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/11/03) Deanna Freitag ﬁnished testifying; Richard Newton testiﬁed; Teresa Schwartz began testimony. [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/14/2003)

03/12/2003

250 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/12/03) Teresa Schwartz ﬁnished testimony; William Wells testiﬁed; Juror #7 excused from service. [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/14/2003)

03/13/2003

251 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/13/03) David Carmichael, Glen Rodman, Richard Boyce and George Neotti testiﬁed. [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/14/2003)

03/14/2003

252 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/14/03) Jury trial resumes with continued direct exam of witness Nayoni. Plaintiff called Sgt. Ricky Graves, CO Carla Beth Wood, and AW Harry O'Neill. Jury trial continued to 8:30 a.m. on 3/18/03 ; [3:00cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/17/2003)

03/18/2003

253 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/18/03) Witnesses called were Augustine Lopez, Paul Dillard, Tanya Young to read testimony of Matthew Jamison & Wayne Hawthorne into the record, Carol Highland, Dr. Richard Palﬁn. [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/21/2003)

03/21/2003

254 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/21/03) The following witnesses testiﬁed: Dr. Lerchin, testimony of Robert J. Druesel read into the record, Chris Todd, Robert Rice, Joel Pena, Nan Udell, and Guy E. Tracy. [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/24/2003)

03/25/2003 255 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/25/03) The following witnesses

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

29/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
testiﬁed: Guy E. Tracy, Ramon Lpez, II, Ballard, Jr., Francis King, Larry J. Rives, Brian Kingston, Joseph McGrath, Vincent Schumacker, and Francis King. [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/2003)

03/25/2003

256 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson directing the Jury Administrator not to pay Andrew Swierstra an attendance fee or travel allowance. The Court ﬁnds that Mr. Swierstra did not render "service" as a juror within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1871(b) (1) and (c)(1) ( Date Entered: 3/27/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/2003)

03/25/2003

RECEIVED Stipulation and Order Allowing Lodging of Certiﬁed Copies of Repoeters' Transcripts of Depositions in Lieu of Originals submitted by defendants [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/2003)

03/26/2003

257 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/26/03) The following witnesses testiﬁed: William Wels, Paul Dillard, Cal Terhune by way of deposition, Robert Ayers,and Von Philips Scheltz. [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/2003)

03/27/2003

258 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/27/03) The following witnesses testiﬁed: R. Ayers and Julian Case by way of deposition. Rule 50 Motion -- granted in part / denied in part; defendants' Rule 403 motion -- denied. [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/2003)

03/27/2003 259 PROPOSED SPECIAL JURY INSTRUCTION NOS. 22 AND 23 submitted by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/2003)

03/27/2003

260 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : allowing lodging of certiﬁed copies of reporters' transcripts of depositions in lieu of originals (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/2003)

03/28/2003 261 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 3/28/03) Carl Larson testiﬁed [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/01/2003)

03/28/2003 262 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to jury [259-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/01/2003)

03/31/2003

RECEIVED proposed special verdict submitted by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/08/2003)

03/31/2003 264 Proposed special instruction no. 24 submitted by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/08/2003)

03/31/2003 265 Plaintiff's proposed rebuttal deposition testimony excerpts [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/08/2003)

03/31/2003 266 OBJECTIONS by defendant to remark [265-1] proposed reading of deposition testimony in rebuttal [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/08/2003)

03/31/2003 267 Defendants' Proposed Special Verdict form [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/08/2003)

04/01/2003

268 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 4/1/03) Counsel read deposition transcripts; Deanna Freitag recalled to the stand; parties rest; closing arguments made Jury trial will be held 8:30 4/2/03 ; [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/09/2003)

04/02/2003

269 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 4/2/03) jury instructions read; jury begin to deliberate; the Court discussed special verdict form, exhibits and jury questions Jury trial will be held 8:30 4/3/03 ; [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/09/2003)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

30/64

10/24/2017
04/02/2003 04/02/2003 04/03/2003 04/03/2003 04/03/2003 04/03/2003 04/03/2003 04/08/2003
04/21/2003
05/05/2003
05/15/2003
05/15/2003
05/15/2003
05/15/2003
05/15/2003
05/15/2003
05/15/2003

CAND-ECF
270 OPPOSITION by defendant to plaintiff's 3/31/03 list of exhibits for admission [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
271 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
272 Final JURY INSTRUCTIONS [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
273 VERDICT (Form) for Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
274 TRIAL Sheet [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
294 JURY NOTE(S) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
295 TRIAL MINUTES: ( C/R Debra Pas) ( Hearing Date: 4/3/03) Jury trial ended ; verdict read [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
263 TRIAL EXHIBITS --- includes one box of binders located on BIN 11. An appointment is needed at all times to view any exhibit. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
275 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying motion for judgment as a matter of law ( Date Entered: 4/23/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
276 JUDGMENT: by Judge Thelton E. Henderson terminating case ; appeal ﬁling ddl 6/4/03 ( Date Entered: 5/5/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
277 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag for prejudgment and post-judgment interest with Notice set for 6/23/03 10:00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
278 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for prejudgment and post-judgment interest [277-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion for prejudgment and post-judgment interest [277-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
279 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to amend judgment to include permanent injunctive relief with Notice set for 6/23/03 10:00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
280 DECLARATION by Deanna L. Freitag re motion to amend judgment to include permanent injunctive relief [279-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion to amend judgment to include permanent injunctive relief [279-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
281 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of order received [0-0], declaration [280-1], motion to amend judgment to include permanent injunctive relief [279-1], order received [0-0], declaration [278-1], motion for prejudgment and post-judgment interest [277-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

31/64

10/24/2017
05/19/2003

CAND-ECF
282 BILL OF COSTS submitted by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re judgment [276-2] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

283 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct for judgment as a matter of law with Notice set for 6/23/03 10:00 [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

284 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct in support of motion for judgment as a matter of law [283-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

285 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct re motion for judgment as a matter of law [283-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct ) re: motion for judgment as a matter of law [283-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

286 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct of declaration [285-1], memorandum [284-1], motion for judgment as a matter of law [283-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

287 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct of order received [0-0] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

288 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct for a new trial with Notice set for 6/23/03 10:00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

289 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct in support of motion for a new trial [288-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

290 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct re motion for a new trial [288-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

291 DECLARATION by Marybelle D. Archibald on behalf of defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct re motion for a new trial [288-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

292 DECLARATION by Cindy Ranzenberger on behalf of defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct re motion for a new trial [288-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct ) re: motion for a new trial [2881] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

32/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF

05/19/2003

293 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct of order received [0-0], declaration [292-1], declaration [291-1], declaration [290-1], memorandum [289-1], motion for a new trial [288-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

05/19/2003

296 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : continuing the deadline for ﬁling plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees and non-statutory costs to 6/3/03 (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/03/2003)

05/20/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) stipulation continuing the deadlines re plaintiff's attorneys fees [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/22/2003)

06/02/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) stipulation continuing the deadlines re plaintiff's attorneys fees and non-statutory costs motion [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/04/2003)

06/03/2003

297 NOTICE of hearing by defendant setting motion for a new trial [288-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 7/21/03, motion for judgment as a matter of law [283-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 7/21/03 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/04/2003)

06/05/2003

298 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : continuing the deadlines re plaintiff's attorneys fees and non-statutory costs motion (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/11/2003)

06/06/2003 299 NOTICE of entry by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of [298-1] order [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/11/2003)

06/09/2003

300 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs with Notice set for 7/21/03 at 10:00 a.m. [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

06/09/2003

301 DECLARATION by James B. Chanin on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

06/09/2003

302 DECLARATION by Michael C. Douglass on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

06/09/2003

303 DECLARATION by Andrew C. Schwartz on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

06/09/2003

304 DECLARATION by Howard Moore on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

06/09/2003

305 DECLARATION by William C. McNeill on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

06/09/2003

306 DECLARATION by John L. Burris on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

06/09/2003 307 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

33/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

06/12/2003 308 NOTICE of hearing by defendant setting motion for a new trial [288-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 7/21/03 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/2003)

06/12/2003

309 NOTICE of hearing by defendant setting motion for judgment as a matter of law [283-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 7/21/03 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/2003)

06/12/2003 310 TABLE OF CONTENTS AND AUTHORITIES by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/2003)

06/12/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/2003)

06/12/2003

311 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of declaration [307-1], declaration [306-1], declaration [305-1], declaration [304-1], declaration [303-1], declaration [302-1], declaration [301-1], motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/2003)

06/13/2003 312 NOTICE of entry of stipulated order re date for hearing on pending motions by defendant [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/2003)

06/19/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) stipulation continuing the deadlines [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/2003)

06/20/2003

313 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : continuing the deadlines for ﬁling declarations in support of attorneyss fees and non-statutory costs motion until 6/20/03 (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/2003)

06/20/2003 314 DECLARATION by Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and nonstatutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/2003)

06/20/2003

315 DECLARATION by Darryl Parker on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/2003)

06/20/2003

316 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson setting hearing on motion to amend judgment to include permanent injunctive relief [279-1] 10:00 8/11/03 ( Date Entered: 6/23/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/23/2003)

06/30/2003 317 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion for judgment as a matter of law [283-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)

06/30/2003

318 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion for a new trial [288-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)

06/30/2003 319 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion for a new trial [288-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)

06/30/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion for judgment as a matter of law [283-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)

06/30/2003 320 OPPOSITION by defendant CA Dept of Correct to motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)

06/30/2003

321 OPPOSITION by defendant CA Dept of Correct to motion to amend judgment to include permanent injunctive relief [279-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

34/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF

06/30/2003
06/30/2003 06/30/2003 06/30/2003 06/30/2003 06/30/2003 06/30/2003 07/02/2003 07/02/2003 07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/08/2003

322 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by defendant CA Dept of Correct in opposition to motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1], motion to amend judgment to include permanent injunctive relief [279-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
323 DECLARATION by James P. Schratz on behalf of defendant CA Dept of Correct re opposition [320-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
324 PROOF OF personal SERVICE by defendant CA Dept of Correct of declaration [323-1], request [322-1], opposition [321-1], opposition [320-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
325 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant in opposition to motion for prejudgment and post-judgment interest [277-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
326 DECLARATION by Marybelle D. Archibald on behalf of defendant in support of opposition memorandum [325-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
327 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant in opposition to motion for prejudgment and post-judgment interest [277-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
328 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of declaration [327-1], declaration [326-1], opposition memorandum [325-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
329 Amended PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion for a new trial [288-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
330 REPLY Brief by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and nonstatutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
331 REPLY Brief by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for prejudgment and postjudgment interest [277-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
332 Supplemental DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
333 REPLY by defendant re opposition [317-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
334 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant in reply to opposition [317-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
335 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of declaration [334-1], reply [333-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
336 REPLY by defendant re opposition [319-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
337 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of reply [336-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
338 NOTICE of entry by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of [313-1] order [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe,

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

35/64

10/24/2017
07/08/2003 07/09/2003 07/09/2003 07/11/2003 07/11/2003 07/21/2003
07/22/2003 07/25/2003 07/28/2003 07/29/2003 07/30/2003 08/11/2003 08/11/2003 08/11/2003 08/11/2003 08/11/2003

CAND-ECF
COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
339 NOTICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of related case(s) C03-3174 JCS [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
340 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion for a new trial [288-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
341 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson vacating hearing re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] ( Date Entered: 7/15/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
342 NOTICE of hearing by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag setting motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 7/28/03 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
343 Second Supplemental DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
344 MINUTES: ( C/R Rosita Flores) ( Hearing Date: 7/21/03) that the motion for a new trial [288-1] is submitted, that the motion for judgment as a matter of law [283-1] is submitted, that the motion for prejudgment and post-judgment interest [277-1] is submitted [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
345 NOTICE of Lodging of original signature page to declaration of James Schratz by defendant [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/25/2003)
346 NOTICE of Lodging of plaintiff's June 2003 billing statement by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
347 MINUTES: ( C/R Claudia Blake) ( Hearing Date: 7/28/03) that the motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] is submitted [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
348 Amended PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of notice [345-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
349 Third Supplemental DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
350 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting motion for prejudgment and postjudgment interest [277-1] ( Date Entered: 8/15/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
351 ORDER re Third Supplemental Declaration in support of Motion for Attorneys Fees by Judge Thelton E. Henderson ( Date Entered: 8/15/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
352 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying motion for judgment as a matter of law [283-1] ( Date Entered: 8/15/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
353 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying motion for a new trial [288-1] ( Date Entered: 8/15/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
354 MINUTES: ( C/R Leo Mankiewicz) ( Hearing Date: 8/11/03) that the motion to amend

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

36/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
judgment to include permanent injunctive relief [279-1] is submitted Status conference set for 10:00 11/17/03 ; [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/2003)

08/14/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) stipulation re resolution of motion for attorneys' fees [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/19/2003)

08/18/2003

355 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting in part and denying in part motion to amend judgment to include permanent injunctive relief [279-1] Status conference set for 1:30 11/17/03 ; ( Date Entered: 8/21/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/21/2003)

08/20/2003

356 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : re resolution of motion for attorneys fees (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/21/2003)

08/22/2003 357 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson relating cases C03-3174 JCS ( Date Entered: 8/27/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/2003)

09/09/2003

358 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct from Dist. Court decision Scheduling order Status conference set for 1:30 11/17/03 ; [355-1], order [355-2], Scheduling order terminating case ; appeal ﬁling ddl 6/4/03 [276-1], judgment [276-2] Fee status paid [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/10/2003)

09/10/2003

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/11/2003)

09/18/2003

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 3-16702 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

09/19/2003

359 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form ﬁled by defendant for dates March 4-7, 11-14, 18-21, 25-27, 29; April 1-2; March 23; July 21; July 28, 2003 ; C/R: Debra Pas, Diane Skillman, Rosita Flores and Leo Mankiewicz; appeal [358-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

10/02/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) stipulation re pla's second motion for award of attorneys fees and costs [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/07/2003)

10/07/2003

360 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : re plaintiff's second motion for award of attorneys fees and costs (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/10/2003)

10/15/2003 361 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re bill of costs [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/16/2003)

10/17/2003

COSTS taxed for Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in the amount of $ $25,417.47 against defendant (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/17/2003)

10/17/2003

362 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting in part and denying in part motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [300-1]; dfts shall pay plaintiff within 30 days of this order: $928,133.75 in attorney fees and $68,082.20 in non-statutory costs ( Date Entered: 10/21/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/21/2003)

10/20/2003

363 SECOND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs with Notice set for 11/24/03 10:00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 10/22/2003 (Entered: 10/22/2003)

10/20/2003 364 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

37/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [363-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

10/20/2003

365 DECLARATION by John L. Burris on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag re motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [363-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

10/20/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [363-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

10/21/2003

366 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson vacating [363-1] motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs ( Date Entered: 10/22/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

10/22/2003 367 AFFIDAVIT of identity of Robert Ayers [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/27/2003)

10/22/2003 368 AFFIDAVIT of identity of Augustin Lopez [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/27/2003)

10/22/2003 369 AFFIDAVIT of interest on judgment [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/27/2003)

10/22/2003

WRIT of Execution issued as to Deanna L. Freitag in the amount of $635,618.38 in the County of Sacramento [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/27/2003)

10/22/2003

WRIT of Execution issued as to Deanna L. Freitag in the amount of $635,618.38 in Del Norte County [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/27/2003)

10/23/2003

WRIT of Execution issued as to Deanna L. Freitag in the amount of $635,618.38 for Solano County [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/28/2003)

10/23/2003

WRIT of Execution issued as to Deanna L. Freitag in the amount of $635,618.38 for Alameda County [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/28/2003)

10/24/2003

370 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant for order staying execution on judgment [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/30/2003)

10/24/2003

371 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant for order granting modiﬁed supersedeas stay of execution with Notice set for 11/24/03 10:00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/30/2003)

10/24/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion for order granting modiﬁed supersedeas stay of execution [371-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/30/2003)

10/24/2003

372 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag of second motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/30/2003)

10/27/2003

WRIT of Execution issued as to Deanna L. Freitag in the amount of $635,618.38 for Sacramento County [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/30/2003)

10/27/2003 373 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in support of (second) writ [0-0] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/30/2003)

10/31/2003

Abstract of judgment issued against defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct in the amount of $ 600,300.00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/2003)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

38/64

10/24/2017
11/03/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003 11/04/2003 11/05/2003 11/05/2003 11/06/2003 11/06/2003 11/06/2003 11/06/2003 11/06/2003 11/06/2003 11/06/2003
11/07/2003 11/10/2003

CAND-ECF
374 STIPULATION to continue the 11/17/03 CMC to 01/05/04 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
375 NOTICE of hearing by defendant setting motion for order staying execution on judgment [370-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 12/1/03 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
376 NOTICE of hearing by defendant setting motion for order granting modiﬁed supersedeas stay of execution [371-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 12/1/03 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
377 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson continuing the Status conference to 10:00 1/5/04 ; ( Date Entered: 11/7/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
WRIT of Execution issued as to Deanna L. Freitag in the amount of $636,070.00 [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
Abstract of judgment issued against defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct in the amount of $ 600,300.00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
378 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by defendant for temporary restraining order staying execution of judgment [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
379 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant in support of motion for temporary restraining order staying execution of judgment [378-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
380 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant re motion for temporary restraining order staying execution of judgment [378-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
381 DECLARATION by Wendy Still on behalf of defendant re motion for temporary restraining order staying execution of judgment [378-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
382 DECLARATION by William Dougherty on behalf of defendant re motion for temporary restraining order staying execution of judgment [378-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion for temporary restraining order staying execution of judgment [378-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
383 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of declaration [382-1], order received [0-0], declaration [381-1], declaration [380-1], memorandum [379-1], motion for temporary restraining order staying execution of judgment [378-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
384 Supplemental MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant in support of motion for order granting modiﬁed supersedeas stay of execution [371-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
Abstract of judgment issued against defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct in the amount of $ 600,300.00 [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/2003)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

39/64

10/24/2017
11/10/2003

CAND-ECF
385 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of order [377-2] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/2003)

11/10/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) stipulation to continue hearing on motion [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/2003)

11/10/2003

386 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting motion for temporary restraining order staying execution of judgment [378-1] ( Date Entered: 11/13/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/2003)

11/13/2003

387 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson setting hearing on motion for order granting modiﬁed supersedeas stay of execution [371-1] 10:00 12/8/03, setting hearing on motion for order staying execution on judgment [370-1] 10:00 12/8/03 ( Date Entered: 11/17/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 11/17/2003 (Entered: 11/17/2003)

11/13/2003

388 NOTICE of entry by defendant of [386-1] order [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/17/2003)

11/14/2003

389 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from Dist. Court decision order [362-1] Fee status not paid [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

11/14/2003

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

11/17/2003

390 OBJECTIONS and MOTION to Strike Evidence by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

11/17/2003

391 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag to motion for order staying execution on judgment [370-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

11/17/2003

392 DECLARATION by Pamela Y. Price on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion for order granting modiﬁed supersedeas stay of execution [371-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

11/17/2003

393 DECLARATION by William C. McNeill on behalf of Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag in opposition to motion for order granting modiﬁed supersedeas stay of execution [371-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

11/17/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion for order staying execution on judgment [370-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

11/17/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) dissolving TRO [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

11/17/2003

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag ) re: motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [363-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

11/19/2003

394 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : granting motion for award of attorney fees and non-statutory costs [363-1] (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/25/2003)

11/24/2003

395 OPPOSITION by defendant to objection [390-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/25/2003)

11/24/2003

396 OBJECTIONS and Motion by defendant to strike evidence in support of opposition [3911] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/25/2003)

11/24/2003 397 REPLY by defendant re opposition [391-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

40/64

10/24/2017
11/24/2003 11/25/2003 12/04/2003 12/04/2003 12/04/2003
12/08/2003 12/17/2003
12/18/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003

(Entered: 11/26/2003)

CAND-ECF

398 DECLARATION by Wendy Still on behalf of defendant re motion for temporary restraining order staying execution of judgment [378-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/26/2003)

399 NOTICE by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [394-1] order [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/03/2003)

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 03-17184 [3:00-cv02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/08/2003)

RECEIVED re appeal [389-1] fee in amount of $ 255.00 receipt ( Receipt # 3354143) from Defendant CA Dept of Corrections. Notice to USCA [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/08/2003)

400 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting motion for temporary restraining order staying execution of judgment [378-1], The November 10, 2003 temporary restraining order shall remain in effect through 12/19/03, or the date defendants have ﬁled declarations. ( Date Entered: 12/8/03) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/08/2003)

401 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 8-11-03 ( C/R: Leo T. Mankiewicz) [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/08/2003)

402 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct from Dist. Court decision order [394-1] Fee status fee not paid, counsel billed. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/18/2003)

Docket fee notiﬁcation form and case information sheet to USCA [402-1] [3:00-cv02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/18/2003)

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/18/2003)

Mailed request for payment of docket fee to appellant (cc to USCA) [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/18/2003)

403 DECLARATION by William Dougherty on behalf of defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct re order [400-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/19/2003)

404 DECLARATION by Glenda M. Clark on behalf of defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez re order [400-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/19/2003)

405 DECLARATION by Sue Grifﬁth on behalf of defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct re order [4001] [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/19/2003)

406 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct re order [400-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/19/2003)

407 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Robert J. Ayers Jr., defendant Teresa Schwartz, defendant Auggie Lopez, defendant CA Dept of Correct of declaration [406-1], declaration [405-1], declaration [404-1], declaration [403-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/19/2003)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

41/64

10/24/2017
12/19/2003 12/19/2003 12/22/2003
01/05/2004 01/05/2004 01/06/2004
01/28/2004
03/30/2004 03/30/2004
04/02/2004 04/07/2004 04/07/2004 04/07/2004 04/07/2004 04/07/2004

CAND-ECF
RECEIVED re appeal [402-1] fee in amount of $ 255.00 ( Receipt # 3354755) Notice to USCA. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
409 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER ﬁled by Plaintiff and Defendant. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
408 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: for 03-16702 and 03-17184. Court Reporter has not ﬁnished transcript. Brieﬁng schedules set by the court are vacated. A new brieﬁng shcedule will be established when the transcript problem has been resolved. These appeals are consolidated. This appeal will not be selected for inclusion in the Mediation Program. All further inguiries regarding this appeal, including requests for extensions of time, to be directed to the Clerk's Ofﬁce. see order. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 03-17398 [3:00-cv02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
410 MINUTES: ( C/R Joan Columbini) ( Hearing Date: 1/5/04)Case Management Conference held.Ordered after hearing: Protective order signed in court. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 01/07/2004 (Entered: 01/06/2004)
411 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : Protective order applys to all Department of Corrections documents provided to counsel for plaintiffs during the development of a remedial plan to address the problem of inmate exhibitionists.....see order. except those documents ﬁled with the Court by Special Master John Hagar. (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
412 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: 03-17398, 03 16702 and 03 17184 are consolidated by the Court. Granted, Court Reporter Debra L. Pas's late motion for an extension of time to ﬁle the transcript, which is now due 3/18/04. This order waives the mandatory fee reduction provided that the transcripts are ﬁled within the time allowed by this order. See order for brieﬁng schedule. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
413 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 7/21/03 ( C/R: Rosita Flores) minutes [344-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
414 COPY of USCA Order: Within 14 days from the date of this order tender the fee to the district court and provide this court with veriﬁcation of payment re Appeal No.03-17398. Court reporter Debra Pas' motion for an extension of time to ﬁle the reporter's transcript is granted. The transcript is due 4/19/04. This order waives the mandantory fee reduction provided that the transcripts are ﬁled within the time allowed in this order. See order for brieﬁng schedule. [3:00-cv-02278] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
RECEIVED re appeal [402-1] fee in amount of $ 255.00 ( Receipt # 3358497, 3358462) [3:00-cv-02278] (ys, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
415 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/4/03 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
416 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/5/03; Volume 2, Pages 189-419 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
417 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/6/03; Volume 3, Pages 420-561 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
418 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/7/03; Volume 3, Pages 562-727 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
419 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/11/03; Volume 5, Pages 728-921 (

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

42/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/07/2004 420 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/12/03; Volume 6, Pages 922-1016 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/07/2004 421 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/13/03; Volume 7, Pages 1017-1157 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/07/2004 422 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/14/03; Volume 8, Pages 1158-1328 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/07/2004 423 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/18/03; Volume 9, Pages 1329-1496 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/07/2004 424 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/20/03; Volume 10, Pages 14971689 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/07/2004 425 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/21/03; Volume 11, Pages 16901913 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/07/2004 426 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/25/03; Volume 12, Pages 19142129 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/07/2004 427 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/26/03; Volume 13, Pages 21302310 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/07/2004 428 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/27/03; Volume 14, Pages 23112430 ( C/R: Debar L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/07/2004 429 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/28/03; Volume 15, Pages 24312604 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/07/2004 430 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/1/03; Volume 16, Pages 2605-2846 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/07/2004 431 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/2/03; Volume 17, Pages 2847-2943 ( C/R: Debra L. Pas) [3:00-cv-02278] (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/22/2004

432 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: dismissing the appeal [389-1] US Court of appeals Number 03-17184. US Court of Appeals numbers 03-16702 and 03 17398 remain open. The current brieﬁng schedule continues to govern as to 03-16702 and 03 17398. [3:00-cv02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/22/2004)

04/22/2004 433 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [389-1] for appeal 03 17184 only, dismissed [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/22/2004)

05/14/2004

434 SPECIAL MASTER'S FINAL REPORT REGARDING ADEQUACY OF PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON REMEDIAL PLAN RE INMATE EXHIBITIONIST MASTURBATION. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/17/2004)

05/18/2004

435 NOTICE of Writ of Execution returned unsatisﬁed with added costs of $75.00 against Stte of California Department of Corrections by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/18/2004)

05/18/2004

436 NOTICE by US Marshal's Service of return on Execution of Writ unsatisﬁed with added costs of $315.00 against judgment debtor California Department of Corrections. [3:00-cv02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/18/2004)

05/19/2004

437 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: Appellant's motion for reinstatement of No. 0317184 is granted. The clerk shall amend court records to reﬂect the docket fees have been paid in No. 03 17184. Appellants' motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

43/64

10/24/2017
05/20/2004 05/20/2004 05/20/2004 05/21/2004
05/24/2004
06/07/2004 06/24/2004 06/28/2004
07/01/2004 07/02/2004 07/12/2004
07/16/2004 08/04/2004 08/04/2004 08/09/2004

CAND-ECF
matters pending before the district court is granted. These appeals are stayed until 6/30/04. See order. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
438 REQUEST to Conduct Formal Hearings by Special Master dated 4/23/04 [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 05/21/2004 (Entered: 05/21/2004)
439 RESPONSE/LETTER by Richard Manford dated 5/6/04 re request [438-1] [3:00-cv02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
440 RESPONSE/LETTER by Steven Fama from the Prison Law Ofﬁce dated 5/6/04 re request [438-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
441 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying request [438-1] The Court will not, at this time, order formal hearings on this issue. The Special Master shall arrange an informal meeting with the parties. ( Date Entered: 5/24/04) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
442 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form ﬁled by defendant for dates March 4-7,11-14,18-21 2003 ;, March 25-27,29, April 01-2, 2003 Court Reporter Debra Pas: March 23, 2003 Court Reporter Diane Skillman: July 21, 2003 Court Reporter Rosita Flores: July 28, 2003, Court Reporter Leo Mankiewicz, C/R: Debra Pas; appeal [402-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
443 OBJECTIONS by defendant CA Dept of Correct to brief [434-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
444 CLERK'S NOTICE the Court has scheduled a hearing at 10:00 am on 7/12/04, on Special Master's Final Report re Adequacy of PBSP's remedial plan ﬁled 5/14/04 ; [3:00-cv02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
445 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: ppellants' motion to further stay appellate proceedings pending resolution of matters pending before the district court is granted. These appeals are stayed until 7/30,04. 03-16702, 03 17184 and 03 17398 [3:00-cv02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
REMARK four transcripts needed to send certiﬁcate of record to USCA.3/19/03, 3/29/03, 3/23/03 and 7/28/03 [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
446 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/25/02 ( C/R: Diane E. Skillman) [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/07/2004)
447 MINUTES: ( C/R Kathy Wyatt) ( Hearing Date: 7/12/04) Hearing on Special Master's Report held and continued to 10:00 AM, on 8/16/04 ;Ordered after hearing: Parties are to meet and confer. Plaintiff to ﬁle a report of the meeting and confer by 8/9/04: any response by the defendants is due by 8/12/04. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
448 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson adopting Special Master's Final Report and Recommendations regarding Inmate Exhibitionist Masterbation [434-1] ( Date Entered: 7/19/04) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
WRIT on return not satisﬁed. 8/4/04 [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/04/2004)
449 CLERK'S NOTICE of return of Writ unsatisﬁed by the Sheriff's Department [3:00-cv02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/04/2004)
450 STATUS REPORT re: Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief to prohibit retliation by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/13/2004)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

44/64

10/24/2017
08/12/2004 08/12/2004 08/16/2004 08/17/2004
08/18/2004 08/25/2004
09/17/2004 09/20/2004 09/21/2004
10/04/2004 10/08/2004 10/08/2004

CAND-ECF
451 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant CA Dept of Correction re Meet and Confer Efforts concerning plaintiff's rquest for additional injunctive relief re retaliation [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/13/2004)
452 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson Status conference re set for 10:00 AM on 9/8/04 ; ( Date Entered: 8/13/04) (cc: If Defendants wish to ﬁle a written response to Plaintiff's proposed remedial plan, they shall do so on or before 8/27/04. all counsel) [3:00-cv02278] (db, COURT STAFF) Modiﬁed on 08/13/2004 (Entered: 08/13/2004)
453 LETTER to the Court dated 8/13/04 from Price and Associates, enclosed: Original and one copy of Page 5 of the revised draft of Retaliation Policy. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
454 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: Appellants' motion to further stay appellate proceedings is granted. These appeals are stayed until 10/29/04. On or before the expiration of the stay, appellants to ﬁle the opening brief or ﬁle a status report and an appropriate motion. If appellants ﬁle the opening brief, the answering brief shall be due ll/29/04: and the optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. The ﬁling of the opening brief or failure to ﬁle a status report shall terminate the stay. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
456 LETTER dated 8/17/04 to the Court form CA Attorney General regarding plaintiff's request for additional injunctive relief re retaliation [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
455 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson The Court grants defendants request for a continuance to 10:00 am on 9/27/04. If defendants wish to ﬁle a written response to plaintiff's proposed remedial paln, they shall do so by 9/17/04. No further requests to continue the hearing date will be considered. ; ( Date Entered: 8/26/04) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
457 STATUS REPORT re plaintiff's request for injunctive relief to prohibit retaliation by defendant CA Dept of Correct [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/17/2004)
458 AMENDED RESPONSE to plaintiff's request for injunctive relief to mandate a new and separate policy prohibiting retaliation, by defendant CA Dept of Correct [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
459 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR FURTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO PROHIBIT RETALIATION,plaintiff to ﬁle a statement by 10/1/04, that describes the relief she continues to seek following the parties meet and confer. Defendants shall ﬁle a response to plaintiff's statement by 10/8/04. Defendants to cite relevant case law to support any legal arguments made regarding plaintiff's entitlement to further injunctive relief.After defendants have ﬁled their response, the matter will be deemed submitted. There will be no hearing unless ordered by the court. Judge Thelton E. Henderson ( Date Entered: 9/21/04) (cc: all counsel) [3:00cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
460 Plaintiff's SupplementalMEMORANDUM of points and authorities in support of request for permanent relief to prohibit retaliation. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/2004)
461 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by defendant CA Dept of Correct re response to plaintiff's request for injunctive relief to mandate a new and separate policy prohibiting retaliation [458-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/12/2004)
462 DECLARATION by Richard L. Manford on behalf of defendant CA Dept of Correct re

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

45/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
supplemental response [461-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/12/2004)

10/18/2004

463 ORDER denying Freitag's request for further injunctive relief, by Judge Thelton E. Henderson ( Date Entered: 10/18/04) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/18/2004)

01/25/2005

464 Special Master's Report and Recommendations: Re Pelican Bay State Prison title 15 Pilot Project and Operational Procedures to Manage Inmate Indecent Exposure Incidents. [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/25/2005)

02/14/2005

465 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting Speical Master's 1-25-05 Report and Recommendation.The Special Master's Report if adopted in full. See order [464-1] ( Date Entered: 2/15/05) (cc: all counsel) [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/15/2005)

02/22/2005 466 AMENDED TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form ﬁled by defendants for dates ; ; appeal [402-1] [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/2005)

02/22/2005

CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notiﬁed., [3:00-cv-02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/22/2005)

09/02/2005

467 USCA Order: Appellee's motion for a 2nd extension of time to ﬁle the answering brief is granted and it is due 9/14/05. The optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Any further delay in ﬁling the answering brief is disfavored. [3:00-cv02278] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/2005)

02/14/2006

Certiﬁed & Transmitted Record on Appeal to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit re 358 , 389 & 402 Notice of Appeals - [includes 13 Main Files & 7 Expandos]. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/14/2006)

04/04/2006 468 RECEIPT/ACKNOWLEDGMENT of Case Records from United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2006) (Entered: 04/06/2006)

12/26/2006

469 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit CERTIFIED JUDGMENT as to 389 , 402 & 358 Notice of Appeals: The Judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART & REMANDED. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/26/2006) (Entered: 12/28/2006)

12/28/2006 470 CLERK'S LETTER Spreading Mandate/Judgment re 469 to Counsel. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2006) (Entered: 12/28/2006)

01/04/2007

471 ORDER REFERRING CASE FOR MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 1/3/2007: This Case is Referred to United StatesMagistrate Judge Maria-Elena James, the original settlement judge, for a Mandatory Settlement Conference on All Remanded Issues. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2007) (Entered: 01/04/2007)

01/05/2007

472 ORDER designating case for electronic case ﬁling (ECF). Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/05/07. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2007 (rbe, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/05/2007)

01/05/2007

474 NOTICE & ORDER OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Signed by Mag. Judge MariaElena James on 1/5/2007 Setting Further Settlement Conference to 3/16/2007 at 10:00 A.M.. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2007) (Entered: 01/08/2007)

01/08/2007 473 ASSOCIATION of Counsel by Deanna L. Freitag. (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 1/8/2007) (Entered: 01/08/2007)

01/09/2007 475 ORDER re: association of counsel. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/09/07.

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

46/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
(rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2007) (Entered: 01/09/2007)

01/31/2007

APPEAL RECORD Returned re 389 , 402 & 358 Notice of Appeals. [received 13 main ﬁles & 7 expandos]. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/31/2007)

02/09/2007 476 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Kathryn Allen and Association of Counsel for Defendants (Allen, Kathryn) (Filed on 2/9/2007) (Entered: 02/09/2007)

02/27/2007 477 NOTICE by Deanna L. Freitag NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 2/27/2007) (Entered: 02/27/2007)

03/02/2007

478 Interim MOTION for Attorney Fees NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR INTERIM FEES AND COSTS ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. Motion Hearing set for 4/16/2007 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 3/2/2007) (Entered: 03/02/2007)

03/02/2007

479 Declaration in Support of 478 Interim MOTION for Attorney Fees NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR INTERIM FEES AND COSTS DECLARATION OF CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 478 ) (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 3/2/2007) (Entered: 03/02/2007)

03/02/2007

480 Proposed Order re 478 Interim MOTION for Attorney Fees NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR INTERIM FEES AND COSTS PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED ORDER by Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 3/2/2007) (Entered: 03/02/2007)

03/07/2007

481 ASSOCIATION of Counsel for Defendants by California Department of Corrections, Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz. (Scally, Vincent) (Filed on 3/7/2007) (Entered: 03/07/2007)

03/08/2007 482 NOTICE by California Department of Corrections, Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz of Unavailability of Counsel (Scally, Vincent) (Filed on 3/8/2007) (Entered: 03/08/2007)

03/12/2007

483 ORDER associating Vincent Scally as counsel for defendants. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/12/07. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2007) (Entered: 03/12/2007)

03/23/2007

484 CIVIL MINUTE ENTRY: [Court Reporter: Not Reported] Settlement Conference Held on 3/16/2007 before Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James. Parties Unable to Settle. Case Referred to TEH for Setting/Status. (Date Filed: 3/23/2007). (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/23/2007) (Entered: 03/23/2007)

03/26/2007

485 Memorandum in Opposition to re 478 Motion by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag for Award of Interim Attorney's Fees and Costs Filed by Defendants California Department of Corrections, Robert J. Ayers, Jr. & Teresa Schwartz. (Manford, Richard) (Filed on 3/26/2007) (Entered: 03/26/2007)

04/02/2007

486 Reply to Opposition re 478 Interim MOTION for Attorney Fees NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR INTERIM FEES AND COSTS REPLY TO OPPOSITION ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 4/2/2007) (Entered: 04/02/2007)

04/03/2007

487 OBJECTIONS to Reply to Opposition to Motion by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag For Award of Interim Attorney's Fees and Costs by California Department of Corrections. (Manford, Richard) (Filed on 4/3/2007) (Entered: 04/03/2007)

04/03/2007

488 ORDER setting case management conference on 04/16/07 at 10:00 AM. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/03/07. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2007) (Entered: 04/03/2007)

04/10/2007 489 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ON REMAND FROM APPEAL ﬁled by Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz. (Manford, Richard) (Filed on 4/10/2007) (Entered:

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

47/64

10/24/2017
04/16/2007
04/17/2007 04/23/2007 04/23/2007 04/23/2007 04/23/2007 04/23/2007 04/24/2007
04/25/2007 05/07/2007 05/08/2007
05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007

04/10/2007)

CAND-ECF

490 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 4/16/2007 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. The Motion for Award of Interim Attorney's Fees and Costs is granted in part and denied in part. (Court Reporter: Kathy Powell) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/16/2007) (Entered: 04/16/2007)

491 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting in part 478 Motion for Interim Attorneys' Fees and ORDER setting brieﬁng schedules. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2007) (Entered: 04/17/2007)

492 MEMORANDUM in Support of re 494 Motion for an Order on Remand Issues Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 4/23/2007) (Entered: 04/23/2007)

493 DECLARATION of Deanna L. Freitag in Support of re 492 Memorandum on Remanded Issues Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 492 ). (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 4/23/2007) (Entered: 04/23/2007)

494 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION for an Order on Remanded Issues Filed by Plaintiff Deanna J. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 4/23/2007) (Entered: 04/23/2007)

495 [PROPOSED] Order Granting Plaintiff's re 494 MOTION FOR AN ORDER ON REMANDED ISSUES Submitted by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 4/23/2007) (Entered: 04/23/2007)

Set/Reset Deadlines as to Motion Hearing on Motion for an Order on Remanded Issues set for 6/4/2007 at 10:00 AM. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/25/2007)

496 [PROPOSED] STIPULATION, AGREEMENT AND REQUEST FOR ORDER AWARDING INTERIM ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS UNDER TYTLE VII Submitted by Parties California Department of Corrections, Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz & Deanna L. Freitag. (Allen, Kathryn) (Filed on 4/24/2007) (Entered: 04/24/2007)

497 STIPULATION AND ORDER awarding interim attorneys' fees and costs. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/25/07. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2007) (Entered: 04/25/2007)

498 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION to re 494 Plaintiff's Motion for Order on Issues Remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Filed by Robert J. Ayers, Jr. & Teresa A. Schwartz. (Manford, Richard) (Filed on 5/7/2007) (Entered: 05/07/2007)

499 [MANUAL FILING OF] APPENDEX OF EXHIBITS in Support of re 498 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Order on Issues Remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals & DECLARATION of Deputy Attorney General Richard L. Manford in Support Thereof Filed by Defendants Robert J. Ayers, Jr. & Teresa Schwartz. (Related document(s) 498 ). (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

500 Reply to Opposition ON REMANDED ISSUES ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 5/14/2007) (Entered: 05/14/2007)

501 Declaration in Support of 500 Reply to Opposition SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DEANNA L. FREITAG ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 500 ) (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 5/14/2007) (Entered: 05/14/2007)

502 Declaration in Support of 500 Reply to Opposition DECLARATION OF CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXHIBIT A

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

48/64

10/24/2017
06/04/2007 06/06/2007 06/16/2007 06/25/2007 06/28/2007
06/28/2007
06/28/2007 06/29/2007 06/29/2007 06/29/2007 07/09/2007 07/13/2007
07/16/2007 07/16/2007

CAND-ECF
TO DECLARATION OF CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON)(Related document(s) 500 ) (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 5/14/2007) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
503 Minute Entry: Hearing on the remanded issues held on 6/4/2007 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. The matter is taken under submission. (Court Reporter: Juanita Gonzalez) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/4/2007) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
504 ORDER granting 494 Plaintiff's motion re: remanded issues. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/06/07. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2007) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
505 NOTICE by Deanna L. Freitag NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 6/16/2007) (Entered: 06/16/2007)
506 NOTICE of Change of Address by Charles Stephen Ralston (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 6/25/2007) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
507 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to the Court's Order re 504 Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion Re Remanded Issues Filed by Defendants Robert J. Ayers, Jr. & Teresa A. Schwartz [Filing Fee: $455.00, Receipt Number 34611007772]. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2007) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
508 NOTICE OF ORDERED TRANSCRIPT (Fed.R.App.P. 10; 9th Cir.Rule 10-3.1(a) Filed by Defendants Robert J. Ayers, Jr. & Teresa A. Schwartz for Proceedings Held on 6/4/2007 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson - [Court Reporter: Juanita Gonzales]. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2007) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
RECEIVED DOCUMENT: Civil Appeal Docketing Statement in Support of re 507 Notice of Appeal Submitted by Defendants Robert L. Ayers, Jr. & Teresa A. Schwartz. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
509 LETTER from Patty Conway, Legal Secretary to Deputy Attorney General Kathryn Allen, dated 6/28/2007 to Clerk Regarding Filing of Notice of Appeal and supporting documents. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2007) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
COPY of Notice of Appeal & Docket Sheet Mailed to All Counsel. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2007) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
TRANSMISSION of Notice of Appeal & Docket Sheet to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Re 507 Notice of Appeal. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
510 USCA Case Number 07-16200 U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit for 507 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Robert J. Ayers, Jr., Teresa Schwartz. (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2007) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
511 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION & ORDERING FORM Filed by Defendants Auggie Lopez, California Department of Corrections, Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz, David A. Carmichael, G. Rodman, Paul Dillard, Barry O'Neill & George Neotti for Proceedings Held on 6/4/2007 before Judge Thelton E. Hendeson - [C/R: Juanita Gonzales]. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/16/2007 (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2007)
512 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT JULY 16 2007 by Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 7/16/2007) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
513 Proposed Order re 512 Status Report PROPOSED ORDER ON FURTHER STATUS STATEMENT by Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 7/16/2007) (Entered: 07/16/2007)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

49/64

10/24/2017
07/16/2007

CAND-ECF
514 Proposed Order REQUIRING PAYMENT FROM SPECIAL DEPOSIT FUND by Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 7/16/2007) (Entered: 07/16/2007)

07/19/2007 515 ORDER for Further Joint Status Statement. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/18/07. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

07/20/2007

516 ORDER denying 514 Plaintiff's request for order of payment of funds from special deposit fund. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/20/07. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2007) (Entered: 07/20/2007)

07/23/2007 517 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATEMENT by Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz. (Manford, Richard) (Filed on 7/23/2007) (Entered: 07/23/2007)

08/09/2007

518 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings Held on 6/4/2007 before Judge Thelton E. Hendeson - [Court Reporter: Juanita Gonzalez]. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2007) (Entered: 08/09/2007)

09/05/2007 519 STIPULATION of the Parties to Retain Parts of the Record in the District Court by Robert J. Ayers, Jr. (Allen, Kathryn) (Filed on 9/5/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)

10/02/2007

520 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ORDER as to re 507 Notice of Appeal: Granting Motion Requesting Assignment of this Appeal to the Panel that decided Freitag v. Ayers et al, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2006). Vacating the Court's 8/27/2007 Order Expediting this Appeal. This appeal shall be heard in the ordinary course. The previously established brieﬁng schedule remains in effect. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2007) (Entered: 10/03/2007)

04/09/2008 521 NOTICE by Deanna L. Freitag Notice of Unavailability (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 4/9/2008) (Entered: 04/09/2008)

05/05/2008

522 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ORDER as to re 507 Notice of Appeal: Granting Appellee's Motion to Transfer Consideration of Attorneys' Fees to the District Court. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2008) (Entered: 05/13/2008)

06/13/2008 523 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ORDER as to re 507 Notice of Appeal. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2008) (Entered: 06/16/2008)

07/16/2008

524 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit MANDATE as to re 507 Notice of Appeal: Afﬁrming the decision of the district court. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2008) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/18/2008 525 CLERK'S Letter Spreading re 524 Mandate to Counsel. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2008) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/25/2008

526 ORDER re: attorneys' fees. Parties to meet and confer and notify Court in writing if they are able to reach agreement. If they cannot reach agreement, Plaintiff shall, by 09/01/08, ﬁle a motion for attorneys' fees, which shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman for a report and recommendation. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/25/08. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2008) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

08/21/2008 527 NOTICE by Deanna L. Freitag Notice of Unavailability (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 8/21/2008) (Entered: 08/21/2008)

08/25/2008

528 STIPULATION re 526 Order, STIPULATION TO THE CONTINUANCE OF DATE FOR FILING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES by Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 8/25/2008) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/27/2008

529 STIPULATION AND ORDER to continue date for ﬁling of motion. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/26/08. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2008) (Entered: 08/27/2008)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

50/64

10/24/2017
09/15/2008 09/15/2008
09/15/2008
09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008

CAND-ECF
530 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION for an Award of Supplemental Attorney's Fees & Costs Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. Motion Hearing set for 12/3/2008 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
531 Declaration of CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON in Support of re 530 MOTION for an Award of Supplemental Attorney's Fees & Costs Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit EXHIBIT N TO DECLARATION OF C RALSTON). (Related document(s) 530 ). (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
532 SUPPLEMENTAL Declaration of CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON & EXHIBITS in Support of re 530 MOTION for an Award of Supplemental Attorney's Fees & Costs Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit EXHIBITS O-R TO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF C RALSTON, #(2) Exhibit EXHIBITS S-U TO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF C RALSTON, #(3) Exhibit EXHIBITS V TO Z TO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF C RALSTON, #(4) Exhibit EXHIBITS AACC TO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF C RALSTON, #(5) Exhibit NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING OF EXHIBITS DD-GG TO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF C RALSTON). (Related document(s) 530 ). (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
533 Declaration of MORRIS J. BALLER in Support of re 530 MOTION for an Award of Supplemental Attorney's Fees & Costs Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 530 ). (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
534 Declaration of BILL LANN LEE in Support of re 530 MOTION for an Award of Supplemental Attorney's Fees & Costs Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 530 ). (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
535 Declaration of HOWARD J MOORE, JR in Support of re 530 MOTION for an Award of Supplemental Attorney's Fees & Costs Filed by Deanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 530 ). (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
536 Declaration of WILLIAM C McNEILL in Support of re 530 MOTION for an Award of Supplemental Attorney's Fees & Costs Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 530 ) (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
537 Declaration of TODD M SCHNEIDER in Support of re 530 MOTION for an Award of Supplemental Attorney's Fees & Costs Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 530 ) (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
538 Declaration of JAMES M FINBERG in Support of re 530 MOTION for an Award of Supplemental Attorney's Fees & Costs Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 530 ). (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
539 [Proposed] Order Granting re 530 MOTION for an Award of Supplemental Attorney's Fees & Costs Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
540 Declaration of John L. Burris In Support of re 530 Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit L). (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
541 Declaration of Pamela Y. Price In Support of re 530 Plaintidff's Motion For Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs Filed by Deanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A, #(2) Exhibit B, #(3) Exhibit C, #(4) Exhibit E, #(5) Exhibit F, #(6) Exhibit G, #

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

51/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
(7) Exhibit H, #(8) Exhibit I, #(9) Exhibit J, #(10) Exhibit K). (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)

09/15/2008

542 MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION of Exhibit D to re 541 Declaration of Pamela Y. Price in Support of re 530 Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 541 ) (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (Entered: 09/15/2008)

09/15/2008

543 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING OF..EXHIBITS "DD", "EE", "FF" & "GG" in Support of re 530 Motion for an Award of Supplemental Attorneys Fees & Costs Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2008) (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/17/2008 544 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 9/17/2008. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2008) (Entered: 09/17/2008)

10/14/2008

545 Declaration of Pamela Y. Price in Support of 541 Declaration in Support, 530 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion Supplemental Declaration ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 541 , 530 ) (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 10/14/2008) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

10/14/2008

546 Declaration of John L. Burris in Support of 540 Declaration in Support, 530 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion Supplemental Declaration ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 540 , 530 ) (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 10/14/2008) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

10/15/2008

547 Memorandum in Opposition to re 530 Deanna Freitag's Motion for Attorney Fees Filed by Auggie Lopez, California Department of Corrections, Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz, David A. Carmichael, G. Rodman, Paul Dillard, Barry O'Neill, George Neotti. (Allen, Kathryn) (Filed on 10/15/2008) (Entered: 10/15/2008)

10/15/2008

548 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition to re 530 Deanna Freitag's Motion for Attorneys' Fees ﬁled byAuggie Lopez, California Department of Corrections, Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz, David A. Carmichael, G. Rodman, Paul Dillard, Barry O'Neill, George Neotti. (Allen, Kathryn) (Filed on 10/15/2008) (Entered: 10/15/2008)

10/15/2008

549 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition and Exhibits A to D of John L. Trunko to re 530 Deanna Freitag's Motion for Attorney Fees ﬁled byAuggie Lopez, California Department of Corrections, Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz, David A. Carmichael, G. Rodman, Paul Dillard, Barry O'Neill, George Neotti. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits F to J)(Allen, Kathryn) (Filed on 10/15/2008) (Entered: 10/15/2008)

10/15/2008

551 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Pamela Y. Price in Support of re 530 MOTION for Award of Reasonale Attorney's Fees & Costs Filed by Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 530 ). (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2008) (Entered: 10/17/2008)

10/16/2008

550 NOTICE by Auggie Lopez, California Department of Corrections, Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz, David A. Carmichael, G. Rodman, Paul Dillard, Barry O'Neill, George Neotti Notice of Errata to Correct Citation Error in Opposition and Corrected Opposition to Deanna Freitag Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Allen, Kathryn) (Filed on 10/16/2008) (Entered: 10/16/2008)

10/29/2008

552 Reply to Opposition re 530 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 10/29/2008) (Entered: 10/29/2008)

10/29/2008 553 Declaration of PAMELA Y PRICE in Support of 530 Supplemental MOTION for

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

52/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF P PRICE ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 530 ) (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 10/29/2008) (Entered: 10/29/2008)

10/29/2008

554 Declaration of CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON in Support of 530 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion REPLY DECLARATION OF C RALSTON TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXHIBITS KK TO NN TO REPLY DECLARATION OF C RALSTON)(Related document(s) 530 ) (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 10/29/2008) (Entered: 10/29/2008)

10/29/2008

555 Declaration of JOHN L BURRIS in Support of 530 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JOHN L BURRIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 530 ) (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 10/29/2008) (Entered: 10/29/2008)

10/29/2008

556 Proposed Order re 530 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion [AMENDED PROPOSED] ORDER by Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 10/29/2008) (Entered: 10/29/2008)

12/03/2008

557 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 12/3/2008 before Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman (Date Filed: 12/3/2008) re 530 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Court Reporter Christine Triska.) (sv, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/3/2008) (Entered: 12/05/2008)

12/08/2008

558 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 530 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag Objections to R&R due by 12/22/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 12/8/2008. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2008) (Entered: 12/08/2008)

12/17/2008

559 Transcript of Proceedings held on 12/3/08, before Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman. Court Reporter/Transcriber Christine Triska, Telephone number (650) 743-8425. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Ofﬁce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/16/2009. (djc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2008) (Entered: 12/17/2008)

12/22/2008

560 OBJECTIONS to re 558 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 530 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion ﬁled by Deanna L. FreitagREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 530 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees Notice of Motion and Motion ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR DE NOVO DETERMINATION OF OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 12/22/2008) (Entered: 12/22/2008)

12/22/2008

561 Declaration of CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON in Support of 560 Objection, DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FEES ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 560 ) (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 12/22/2008) (Entered: 12/22/2008)

12/22/2008 562 Proposed Order GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS RE: OBJECTIONS by Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 12/22/2008) (Entered: 12/22/2008)

12/22/2008 563 OBJECTIONS to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommedations by California

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

53/64

10/24/2017
12/24/2008 12/24/2008 01/05/2009 01/05/2009 01/12/2009 01/26/2009 02/03/2009 04/03/2009 04/03/2009 04/21/2009 04/28/2009 05/28/2009

CAND-ECF
Department of Corrections, Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Motion for De Novo Determination and Objections to the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Attorneys Fees)(Allen, Kathryn) (Filed on 12/22/2008) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
564 Declaration of Pamela Y. Price in Support of 541 Declaration in Support, Third Supplemental Declaration of Pamela Y. Price Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 541 ) (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 12/24/2008) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
565 Declaration of John L. Burris in Support of 540 Declaration in Support Third Supplemental Declaration of John L. Burris Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 540 ) (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 12/24/2008) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
566 Memorandum in Opposition Defendants/appellants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for De Novo Determination and Objections to Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs Motion for Supplemental Attorneys Fees and Costs ﬁled byRobert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz. (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 1/5/2009) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
567 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 563 Objection, PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 563 ) (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 1/5/2009) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
568 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson referring case for mandatory settlement and vacating January 26, 2009 hearing. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2009) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
569 ORDER re 568 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, Order on Report and Recommendations Settlement Conference set for 4/28/2009 10:00 AM.. Signed by Judge MARIA-ELENA JAMES on 1/26/09. (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
570 NOTICE by Auggie Lopez, California Department of Corrections, Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz, David A. Carmichael, G. Rodman, Paul Dillard, Barry O'Neill, George Neotti of Unavailability of Kathryn Allen (Allen, Kathryn) (Filed on 2/3/2009) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
571 NOTICE of Change of Address by Charles Stephen Ralston (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 4/3/2009) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
572 NOTICE by California Department of Corrections, Robert J. Ayers, Jr, Teresa Schwartz of Unavailability of Kathryn Allen (Allen, Kathryn) (Filed on 4/3/2009) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
573 NOTICE by Deanna L. Freitag OF UNAVAILABILITY (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 4/21/2009) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
574 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference Held (Date Filed: 4/28/2009). Status Re: Settlement Conference set for 5/28/2009 10:00 AM. () (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/28/2009) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
575 Minute Entry: Status RE: Settlement (Date Filed: 5/28/2009). Further Status RE: Settlement set for 6/18/2009, 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter Sarah Goekler.) (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/28/2009) (Entered: 05/28/2009)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

54/64

10/24/2017
06/01/2009

CAND-ECF
576 ORDER re: referral of 530 pending attorneys' fees motion to Magistrate Judge. Scope of referral does not include future claims for attorneys' fees. Parties to meet and confer and submit joint statement re: injunctive relief by 06/29/09. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/01/09. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/16/2009 577 Letter from Vincent J. Scally, Jr. re: Settlement Conference. (Scally, Vincent) (Filed on 6/16/2009) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

06/18/2009

578 Minute Entry: Further Status Re: Settlement. (Date Filed: 6/18/2009). Matter Continued for Further Status Re: Settlement set for 7/2/2009 10:00 AM. (Court Reporter Jim Yeomams.) (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/29/2009 579 Statement re 576 Order, JOINT STATUS STATEMENT ON INJUNCTION by Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 6/29/2009) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

07/02/2009

580 ORDER re: injunctive relief. Injunctive relief shall remain in full effect unless and until otherwise ordered. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/02/09. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

581 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Status Re: Settlement Conference Held. (Date Filed: 7/2/2009). Further Telephonic Status set for 7/16/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter Margo Gurule.) (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/2/2009) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/14/2009

582 Letter from Charles S Ralston, Attorney for Plaintiff RE: STATUS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE TO JULY 30. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 7/14/2009) (Entered: 07/14/2009)

07/30/2009

583 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference Held. CASE SETTLED. (Date Filed: 7/30/2009). (Tape #10:11 - 10:14.) (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/30/2009) (Entered: 07/30/2009)

08/12/2009

584 ORDER re: settlement of 530 Plaintiffs' September 15, 2008 motion for attorneys' fees. Motion and objections to 558 Report and recommendations will be deemed resolved pursuant to 583 unless the parties otherwise notify the Court by 08/24/09. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/12/09. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2009) (Entered: 08/12/2009)

08/19/2009 585 Letter from Charles S Ralston, Attorney for Plaintiff LETTER IN RESPONSE TO ORDER OF AUGUST 12, 2009. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 8/19/2009) (Entered: 08/19/2009)

08/24/2009

586 SECOND ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS' SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES re 585 Letter ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag (counsel shall notify the Court as soon as payment on the settlement of Planitiffs' September 15, 2008 motion for attorneys' fees has been made by 9/28/09. If payment has not yet been made the parties shall ﬁle a joint statement re: delay and proposal for moving forward).. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/24/09. (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2009) (Entered: 08/24/2009)

09/28/2009 587 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS STATEMENT ON FEES SETTLEMENT by Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 9/28/2009) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

09/30/2009

588 Letter from Charles S Ralston, Attorney for Plaintiff LETTER TO COURT CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF SETTLEMENT PAYMENT. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on 9/30/2009) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

10/06/2009 589 STIPULATION re 587 Status Report STIPULATIION PURSUANT TO FEES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Deanna L. Freitag. (Ralston, Charles) (Filed on

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

55/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
10/6/2009) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

10/07/2009

590 STIPULATION AND ORDER pursuant to Fees Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/07/09. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2009) (Entered: 10/07/2009)

03/09/2010 591 ORDER closing case. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/09/10. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2010) (Entered: 03/09/2010)

11/15/2010

592 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for An Award of Supplemental Attorneys' Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. Motion Hearing set for 12/20/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Harrell, Jeshawna) (Filed on 11/15/2010) Modiﬁed on 11/17/2010 REPLACED BY 597 CORRECTED MOTION (mjj2, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2010)

11/15/2010

593 Declaration of Roger L. Cook in Support of 592 Plaintiff's Motion for An Award of Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Harrell, Jeshawna) (Filed on 11/15/2010) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2010 (mjj2, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2010)

11/15/2010

594 Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of 592 Plaintiff's Motion for An Award of Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Harrell, Jeshawna) (Filed on 11/15/2010) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2010 (mjj2, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2010)

11/15/2010

595 Declaration of Pamela Y. Price in Support of 594 Request for Judicial Notice, 592 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for An Award of Supplemental Attorneys' Fees, 593 Declaration in Support ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pamela Y. Price Resume, # 2 Exhibit Order Awarding Attorneys Fees (Reissner), # 3 Exhibit Order for Permanent Injunctive Relief, # 4 Exhibit Special Master's Final Report, # 5 Exhibit Order Adopting Special Master's Final Report, # 6 Exhibit Order Awarding Attorneys Fees (Freitag), # 7 Exhibit Stipulation & Order For Attorneys Fees (Freitag), # 8 Exhibit Order Awarding Attorneys Fees (Campbell), # 9 Exhibit Price And Associates Bills, # 10 Exhibit Attorneys' Fee Summary)(Related document(s) 594 , 592 , 593 ) (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 11/15/2010) (Entered: 11/16/2010)

11/16/2010

596 Declaration of Jeshawna R. Harrell in Support of 592 Plaintiff's Motion for An Award of Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Harrell, Jeshawna) (Filed on 11/16/2010) Modiﬁed on 11/16/2010 (mjj2, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2010)

11/16/2010

597 Corrected MOTION for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees re 592 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for An Award of Supplemental Attorneys' Fees, 596 Declaration in Support, 595 Declaration in Support,,, 594 Request for Judicial Notice, 593 Declaration in Support Plaintiff's Corrected Notice of Motion For An Award of Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. Motion Hearing set for 12/20/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Harrell, Jeshawna) (Filed on 11/16/2010) Modiﬁed on 11/17/2010 (mjj2, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2010)

11/16/2010

598 ERRATA re 595 Declaration in Support,,, Errata to the Declaration of Pamela Y. Price and Exhibit J in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for An Award for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Deanna L. Freitag. (Harrell, Jeshawna) (Filed on 11/16/2010) (Entered: 11/16/2010)

11/16/2010 599 Proposed Order re 597 Corrected MOTION for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees, 596

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

56/64

10/24/2017

CAND-ECF
Declaration in Support, 595 Declaration in Support, 594 Request for Judicial Notice, 592 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for An Award of Supplemental Attorneys' Fees MOTION to Amend/Correct 594 Request for Judicial Notice, 592 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for An Award of Supplemental Attorneys' Fees, 595 Declaration in Support, 593 Declaration in Support, 598 Errata, [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for An Award of Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Deanna L. Freitag. (Harrell, Jeshawna) (Filed on 11/16/2010) Modiﬁed on 11/17/2010 (mjj2, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/16/2010)

11/29/2010

600 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 597 Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Vincent J. Scally)(Related document(s) 597 ) (Scally, Vincent) (Filed on 11/29/2010) (Entered: 11/29/2010)

12/06/2010

601 Reply Brief in Support of re 597 Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support of Plaintifff's Motion for an Award of Supplemental Attorney's Fees & Costs ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 12/6/2010) (Entered: 12/06/2010)

12/14/2010

602 ORDER referring re 592 MOTION for Attorneys' Fees to Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/14/10. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2010) (Entered: 12/14/2010)

12/15/2010

***Deadlines terminated. Motion Hearing for 12/20/10 vacated per 602 Order referred to Magistrate Judge. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2010) Modiﬁed on 12/15/2010 (tmi, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/15/2010)

12/21/2010

603 ORDER REFERRING CASE to a Magistrate Judge for Settlement. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/20/10. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2010) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/29/2010 604 NOTICE of Change of Address ﬁled by Attorney Pamela Yvette Price. (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 12/29/2010) (Entered: 12/29/2010)

01/10/2011

605 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge. Settlement Conference set for 2/25/2011 09:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/10/2011. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2011) (Entered: 01/10/2011)

02/11/2011

606 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Continue Settlment Conference by Deanna L. Freitag. (Harrell, Jeshawna) (Filed on 2/11/2011) (Entered: 02/11/2011)

02/15/2011

607 STIPULATION & ORDER to Continue Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge re 606 . Settlement Conference set for 2/25/2011 09:30 AM has been CONTINUED to 4/4/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/15/2011. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2011) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

03/24/2011

608 Letter from Attorney Jeshawna R. Harrell Regarding Waiver of Ofﬁcer Deanna Freitag's Attendance at Settlement Conference. (Harrell, Jeshawna) (Filed on 3/24/2011) (Entered: 03/24/2011)

03/29/2011

609 ORDER Granting 608 Plaintiff's Request to Excuse Attendance at Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/29/2011. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2011) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

04/04/2011

610 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held 4/4/2011. Case did not settle. No Further Settlement Conference scheduled. (Date Filed: 4/4/2011). (Court Reporter: Not

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

57/64

10/24/2017
05/25/2011
07/11/2011 07/25/2011
07/25/2011
07/26/2011 07/26/2011 08/08/2011 08/08/2011 08/08/2011

CAND-ECF
Recorded.). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/4/2011) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
Due to Judge Chen's elevation to Article III status, this case is re-referred to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins for settlement. All matters scheduled before, and deadlines set by, Judge Chen are hereby vacated. All future settlement matters should be addressed to Judge Cousins unless otherwise ordered by the presiding judge. Until Judge Cousins takes the bench on July 5, 2011, any urgent settlement issues requiring immediate judicial attention should be addressed to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero by contacting his courtroom deputy, Karen Hom, at (415) 522-2035. ; Judge Hon. Edward M. Chen no longer assigned to case. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2011) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
611 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS on re 597 Plaintiff's Corrected MOTION for Attorneys' Fees & Costs. Objections due by 7/25/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 7/11/2011. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2011) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
612 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION for De Novo Determination & OBJECTIONS to re 611 The Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendations re 597 Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees & Costs ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. Motion Hearing set for 9/19/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Responses due by 8/8/2011. Replies due by 8/15/2011. (Scally, Vincent) (Filed on 7/25/2011) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
613 Plaintiff's Notice of Motion & Motion for De Novo Determination of Objections to Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. Motion Hearing set for 9/12/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Responses due by 8/8/2011. Replies due by 8/15/2011. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit Chart)(Harrell, Jeshawna) (Filed on 7/25/2011) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
614 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Hearing on re 613 Plaintiff's Notice of Motion & Motion for De Novo Determination of Objections to Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Motion Hearing re-set for 9/19/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2011) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
615 [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion Regarding Objections to Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Corrected Motion for Supplemental Attorney's Fees and Costs ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Harrell, Jeshawna) (Filed on 7/26/2011) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
616 RESPONSE to re 613 Plaintiff's Motion for De Novo Determination of Objections to Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. (Scally, Vincent) (Filed on 8/8/2011) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
617 RESPONSE to re 612 Defendants' MOTION for De Novo Determination and Objections to re 611 Magistrate Judge's Findings/REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 8/8/2011) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
618 DECLARATION of Jeshawna R. Harrell in Opposition to 612 MOTION re 611 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 597 Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag MOTION re 611 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 597 Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag, 617 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter to Vincent Scally)(Related document(s) 612 , 617 ) (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 8/8/2011) (Entered: 08/08/2011)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

58/64

10/24/2017
08/15/2011 08/15/2011
09/07/2011 09/16/2011 09/30/2011
10/06/2011 03/12/2012
03/12/2012 03/12/2012 03/14/2012 03/16/2012
03/16/2012

CAND-ECF
619 REPLY to re 617 Plaintiff's Opposition to re 613 , 612 Defendants' MOTION for De Novo Determination and Objections to Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. (Scally, Vincent) (Filed on 8/15/2011) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
620 REPLY Brief in Support of re 597 Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees, re 611 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 597 Corrected MOTION for Attorney Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag, re 613 MOTION Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for De Novo Determination of Objections to Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs -Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support of Motion for De Novo Determination of Objections to Report and Recommendations on Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Costs- ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Harrell, Jeshawna) (Filed on 8/15/2011) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
621 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson re: 612 613 Parties' motions for de novo review of 611 Report and Recommendation re: 597 Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2011) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
***Deadlines terminated. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2011) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
622 Joint Statement re 621 Order on Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit 2010 Itemized List of Fees and Costs, #(2) Exhibit 2011 Itemized List of Fees and Costs)(Price, Pamela) (Filed on 9/30/2011) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
623 ORDER re: 622 Parties' September 30, 2011 joint statement re: attorneys' fees and costs. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/06/11. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2011) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
624 Notice of Motion & Motion To Modify July 2, 2009 Order And Award of Reasonable Attorneys Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. Motion Hearing set for 4/16/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Responses due by 3/26/2012. Replies due by 4/2/2012. (Williams, Terina) (Filed on 3/12/2012) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
625 Declaration of Pamela Y. Price in Support of re 624 Notice of Motion and Motion To Modify July 2, 2009 Order And Award of Reasonable Attorneys Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 624 ) (Williams, Terina) (Filed on 3/12/2012) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
626 Declaration of Dianne L. Andrews in Support of re 624 Notice of Motion and Motion To Modify July 2, 2009 Order And Award of Reasonable Attorneys Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 624 ) (Williams, Terina) (Filed on 3/12/2012) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
627 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman for Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/14/2012. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2012) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
628 CLERK'S NOTICE Vacating Motion Hearing set for 4/16/2012. 624 Motion To Modify July 2, 2009 Order and Award of Reasonable Attorneys Fees has been referred to Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman for a report and recommendation. This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2012) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
629 BRIEFING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 3/16/2012.

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

59/64

10/24/2017
03/28/2012 03/28/2012 03/28/2012
04/04/2012 04/04/2012 04/13/2012 04/17/2012 04/17/2012 04/18/2012 04/18/2012 04/26/2012

CAND-ECF
(bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2012) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
630 RESPONSE to (re 624 Notice of Motion & Motion To Modify July 2, 2009 Order And Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees) -CDCR's Opposition to Modify July 2, 2009 Order and Award of Reasonable Attorney Fees; Request for Modiﬁcation to the Monitoring Process and Dissolution of the Injunction- ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 3/28/2012) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
631 Declaration of Alan L. Sobel in Support of re 630 Response/Opposition to CDCR's Motion to Modify July 2, 2009 Order and Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. (Related document(s) 630 ) (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 3/28/2012) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
632 Declaration of Lyn Harlan in Support of re 630 Response/Opposition to Motion to Modify July 2, 2009 Order and Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 630 ) (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 3/28/2012) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
633 REPLY brief in Support of (re 624 Notice of Motion & Motion To Modify July 2, 2009 Order And Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees) -Plaintiff Deanna L. Freitags Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Modify July 2, 2009 Order and Award of Reasonable Attorneys Fees- ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Williams, Terina) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
634 Declaration of Terina M. Williams in Support of re 624 Notice of Motion & Motion To Modify July 2, 2009 Order And Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Related document(s) 624 ) (Williams, Terina) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
635 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING HEARING ON MOTION: Plaintiff's Motion to Modify July 2, 2009 Order re Attorney's Fees shall be heard on 5/2/2012 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2012) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
636 CDCR's Supplemental Opposition to re 624 Motion to Modify July 2, 2009 Order and Award of Fees; Request for Modiﬁcation to the Monitoring Process and Dissolution of the Injunction ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 4/17/2012) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
637 Declaration of Lyn Harlan in Support of 636 Supplemental Response/Opposition to Motion to Modify July 2, 2009 Order re Attorneys' Fees ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 6)(Related document(s) 636 ) (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 4/17/2012) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
638 Administrative Motion and Declaration of Pamela Y. Price for Permission to File Objections to re 636 Defendant CDCR's Supplemental Opposition to re 624 Plaintiff's Motion to Modify July 2, 2009 Order and Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 4/18/2012) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
639 [Proposed] Order granting re 638 Administrative Motion and Declaration of Pamela Y. Price for Permission to File Objections to Defendant CDCR's Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Modify July 2, 2009 Order Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Williams, Terina) (Filed on 4/18/2012) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
640 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS on re 624 Plaintiff's Motion To Modify July 2, 2009 Order And Award of Reasonable Attorneys Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag.

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

60/64

10/24/2017
04/27/2012 05/07/2012 05/10/2012
05/25/2012 05/25/2012 05/25/2012 05/25/2012 05/25/2012 06/01/2012 06/01/2012

CAND-ECF
Objections due by 5/10/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 4/26/2012. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2012) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
641 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING HEARING on re 624 Plaintiff's Motion to Modify July 2, 2009 Order & Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees scheduled for 5/2/2012 at 2:00p.. (rmm2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2012) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
642 OBJECTIONS to re 640 REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS on re 624 Motion To Modify July 2, 2009 Order And Award of Reasonable Attorneys Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 5/7/2012) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
643 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION for Relief from re 640 Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge Report & Recommendation on Motion To Modify July 2, 2009 Order And Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag -Motion for Relief from Non-dispositive Pretrial Order Of Magistrate Judge - Report And Recommendation on Motion To Modify July 2, 2009 Order and Award of Reasonable Attorneys Fees- ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Pamela Y. Price, # 2 Proposed Order)(Williams, Terina) (Filed on 5/10/2012) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
644 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 648 . *** NOTICE by California Department of Corrections of Motion and Motion to Terminate the Injunction or Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction Monitoring Process (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 5/25/2012) Modiﬁed on 5/25/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/25/2012)
645 Declaration of Lyn Harlan in Support of 644 Notice (Other) of Motion and Motion to Terminate the Injunction or Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8) (Related document(s) 644 ) (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 5/25/2012) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
646 Declaration of G. D. Lewis in Support of 644 Notice (Other) of Motion and Motion to Terminate the Freitag Injunction or Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 644 ) (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 5/25/2012) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
647 Request for Judicial Notice re 645 Declaration in Support, of CDCR's Motion to Terminate the Injunction or Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process ﬁled byCalifornia Department of Corrections. (Related document(s) 645 ) (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 5/25/2012) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
648 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION to Terminate the Injunction or, Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2012 AT 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Responses due by 6/8/2012. Replies due by 6/15/2012. (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 5/25/2012) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
649 ORDER Adopting in Part re 640 Magistrate Judge's April 26, 2012 Report & Recommendation; ORDER Granting in Part & Denying in Part re 624 Plaintiff's Motion re: Attorneys' Fees. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2012) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
650 Administrative Motion & Declaration of Pamela Y. Price for Order to Enlarge Time for Plaintiff to Oppose And the Court to Hear Defendant CDCR's Motion to Terminate the Injunction ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Williams, Terina) (Filed on 6/1/2012) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

61/64

10/24/2017
06/01/2012 06/05/2012
06/06/2012 06/06/2012 06/06/2012 06/14/2012 06/18/2012 08/14/2012 08/21/2012
09/07/2012 09/11/2012

CAND-ECF
651 [Proposed] Order Enlarging Time for Plaintiff to Oppose And the Court to Hear Defendant CDCRs Motion to Terminate the Injunction re 650 ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Williams, Terina) (Filed on 6/1/2012) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
652 RESPONSE to (re 650 to Plaintiff's Administrative Motion and Declaration of Pamela Y. Price for Order to Enlarge Time for Plaintiff to Oppose And the Court to Hear Defendant CDCRs Motion to Terminate the Injunction) -Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time for Plaintiff to Oppose and the Court to Hear the CDCR's Motion to Terminate the Injunction- ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 6/5/2012) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
653 ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting extension of time re: 648 Defendant's Motion to Terminate Injunction; ORDER of Referral. Opposition to motion due 08/27/12. Reply due 09/07/12. All discovery disputes are Referred to Magistrate Judge Corley. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2012) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
Set/Reset Hearing: Motion Hearing re: 648 Defendant's motion to terminate injunction set for 09/24/12 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2012) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for Discovery. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2012) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
654 MOTION for Reconsideration of re 649 Order Adopting in Part Magistrate Judge's 4/26/2012 Report & Recommendation; Order Granting in Part & Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion re: Attorneys' Fees ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 6/14/2012) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
655 ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying re 654 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of re 649 June 1, 2012 Order. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2012) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
656 STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF'S TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE INJUNCTION OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO MODIFY THE INJUNCTION-MONITORING PROCESS ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 8/14/2012) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
657 STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Plaintiff's Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Injunction or, Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process re 656 : Set/Reset Deadlines as to re 648 Motion to Terminate the Injunction or, Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process. Responses due by 9/10/2012. Replies due by 9/21/2012. Motion Hearing set for 10/15/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/20/2012. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2012) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
658 STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' Request for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Terminate or Alternatively to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag, California Department of Corrections. (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 9/7/2012) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
659 STIPULATION AND ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Request for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Terminate or Alternatively to Modify the Injunctionmonitoring Process re 658 : Responses due by 9/17/2012. Replies due by 9/28/2012. Motion Hearing set for 10/29/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Thelton E. Henderson. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 09/10/2012. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2012) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

62/64

10/24/2017
09/17/2012
09/17/2012
09/17/2012 09/17/2012 09/17/2012 09/18/2012 09/28/2012 09/28/2012 09/28/2012
10/18/2012

CAND-ECF
660 Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to re 648 Defendants' MOTION to Terminate the Injunction or, Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Shirley Michelson, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Kelly Stanton, # 3 Exhibit Stipulation and Order for Collection of Undisputed Attorneys Fees (10/11/11), # 4 Exhibit Stipulation and Order for Collection of Undisputed Attorneys Fees (2/1/12), # 5 Exhibit Stipulation and Order for Collection of Undisputed Attorneys Fees (4/13/12), # 6 Exhibit Stipulation and Order for Collection of Undisputed Attorneys Fees (5/23/12), # 7 Exhibit Supp. Declaration of Kimberley Morin) (Related document(s) 648 ) (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 9/17/2012) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
661 DECLARATION of Pamela Y. Price in Opposition to re 648 MOTION to Terminate the Injunction or, Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process, re 660 Request for Judicial Notice ﬁled byDeanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter to Senator Polanco from Freitag (9/9/99), # 2 Exhibit Letter from Lyn Harlan (9/8/11), # 3 Exhibit Letter to Lyn Harlan (10/14/11), # 4 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of Shirley Michelson (12/23/09), # 5 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of Kelly Stanton (12/23/09))(Related document(s) 648 , 660 ) (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 9/17/2012) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
662 DECLARATION of Jane B. Moore in Opposition to re 648 MOTION to Terminate the Injunction or, Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit IERC Minutes (1/31/08), # 2 Exhibit IERC Minutes (11/18/10), # 3 Exhibit Chart of IERC-Reviewed 115s)(Related document(s) 648 ) (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 9/17/2012) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
663 RESPONSE to (re 648 Defendants' MOTION to Terminate the Injunction or, Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process ) ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 9/17/2012) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
664 OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE in Opposition to re 648 MOTION to Terminate the Injunction or, Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 9/17/2012) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
665 [Proposed] Order Denying re 648 MOTION to Terminate the Injunction or, Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process , re 663 Opposition/Response to the Motion ﬁled by Deanna L. Freitag. (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 9/18/2012) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
666 REPLY to Response/Opposition to (re 648 Motion to Terminate the Injunction or, Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process) ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 9/28/2012) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
667 Declaration of WARDEN G.D. LEWIS IN SUPPORT OF re 666 CDCR'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO CDCR'S MOTION TO TERMINATE THE INJUNCTION, OR ALTERNATIVELY MODIFY THE INJUNCTION PROCESS ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 9/28/2012) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
668 REPLY to re 664 Plaintiff's Objections to Evidence and Objection to Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice in re 666 Response/Opposition to (re 648 MOTION to Terminate the Injunction or, Alternatively, to Modify the Injunction-Monitoring Process ) CDCR'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO CDCR'S MOTION TO TERMINATE THE INJUNCTION, OR ALTERNATIVELY MODIFY THE INJUNCTION PROCESS ﬁled by California Department of Corrections. (Harlan, Lyn) (Filed on 9/28/2012) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
669 CLERK'S NOTICE Vacating Hearing on re 648 Motion to Terminate Injunction noticed for hearing on 10/29/2012. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2012) (Entered:

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

63/64

10/24/2017
11/05/2012
12/17/2012 12/20/2012 10/24/2014

10/18/2012)

CAND-ECF

670 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson terminating monitoring of injunctive relief re 648 . Defendant's Motion to Terminate Injunction is granted in part and denied in part. Parties to ﬁle joint report re: attorneys' fees and costs by 12/17/12. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2012) (Entered: 11/05/2012)

671 STATUS REPORT Joint Report re: Attorneys Fees Dispute by Deanna L. Freitag. (Price, Pamela) (Filed on 12/17/2012) (Entered: 12/17/2012)

672 ORDER setting brieﬁng schedule re: attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff to ﬁle motion, if any, by 01/14/13. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/20/12. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2012) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

673 CLERK'S NOTICE re Withdrawal of Trial Exhibits. (tnS) (Filed on 10/24/2014) (Entered: 10/24/2014)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

10/24/2017 09:49:53

PACER Login:

hs0328:2563377:0 Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

3:00-cv-02278TEH
3.00

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716286376788927-L_1_0-1

64/64

 
 468 F.3d 528 (2006)
Deanna L. FREITAG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Robert J. AYERS, Jr.; Teresa Schwartz; Augustine Lopez; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellants, and
David A. Carmichael; G. Rodman; Paul Dillard; Barry O'Neill; George Neotti, Defendants. Deanna L. Freitag, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Robert J. Ayers, Jr.; Teresa Schwartz; Augustine Lopez; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellants, and
David A. Carmichael; G. Rodman; Paul Dillard; Barry O'Neill; George Neotti, Defendants. Deanna L. Freitag, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Robert J. Ayers, Jr.; Teresa Schwartz; Augustine Lopez; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellants, and
David A. Carmichael; G. Rodman; Paul Dillard; Barry O'Neill; George Neotti, Defendants.
Nos. 03-16702, 03-17184, 03-17398.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued March 15, 2006. Filed September 13, 2006. Amended November 3, 2006.
523901 *529 *530 *531 Jacob A. Appelsmith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Vincent J. Scally, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for the defendants-appellants.
Pamela Y. Price and John L. Burris, Oakland, CA, and Charles Stephen Ralston, Berkeley, CA, for the plaintiffappellee.
Before STEPHEN REINHARDT, JOHN T. NOONAN, and MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND AMENDED OPINION

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The opinion filed September 13, 2006, slip op. 11183, and appearing at 463 F.3d 838 (9th Cir.2006), is hereby amended as follows:

1. At slip op. at 11205, line 4: insert "sufficiently" after "failed to invoke".

532

2. At slip op. at 11205, line 4: after the sentence ending with "in this case." insert *532 the

following footnote: The jury had before it evidence offered by the defendants regarding disciplinary

measures taken, including a belated referral for criminal prosecution of a principal offender after

Freitag had filed her formal complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and

Housing, and after she had sent two letters to State Senator Polanco that precipitated the

investigation by the Inspector General. The belated referral, however, attempted to address the

conduct of only one of the 20 inmates who were responsible for 56 incidents of exhibitionist

masturbation in the security housing unit, as identified in the Inspector General's report. Moreover, the jury heard the Inspector General's findings that the "institution has stopped referring exhibitionist masturbation cases to the district attorney" and that "[c]ases that would be appropriate for prosecution are not referred."
3. At slip op. at 11208, line 2: after "Polanco," strike the rest of the sentence from line 2 to line 5, beginning with "and Schwartz temporarily" and ending with "complaints of inmate harassment." After "Polanco," on line 2, insert the following: "and Schwartz requested at least one IA investigation in the months after Freitag's complaints of sexual harassment."
With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.
OPINION
May a state department of corrections be held liable for prison officials' failure to correct a hostile work environment that is the result of male prisoners' sexual harassment of female guards? We answer that question, "Yes."
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and three Pelican Bay State Prison (Pelican Bay) administrators appeal a judgment in favor of Deanna Freitag, a former correctional officer in the prison's Secure Housing Unit. Freitag alleged that the CDCR and Pelican Bay were delinquent in addressing the sexually hostile environment created by prison inmates0907particularly in confronting the pervasive practice at Pelican Bay of inmate exhibitionist masturbation directed at female officers0907and that she was retaliated against and ultimately terminated due to her repeated complaints regarding the problem. A jury agreed, finding that the CDCR maintained a hostile work environment and retaliated against Freitag in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the three administrators retaliated against her for engaging in constitutionally protected speech in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict that the CDCR violated Freitag's rights under Title VII, but we remand her First Amendment claim to the district court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). As a result, we also remand the jury's damages award to the same extent. We affirm the district court's grant of injunctive relief, however.
I
533 In January 1996, Deanna Freitag transferred to Pelican Bay State Prison from *533 Chuckwalla Valley State Prison, where she had been a correctional officer for several years, in order to be closer to her family. Pelican Bay, a maximum security prison in Crescent City, California, includes a Secure Housing Unit (SHU) which incarcerates many of the state's most violent criminals. Inmates in the SHU are subjected to harsher and more restrictive conditions than exist at any other prison in the state system.[1]
On September 12, 1998, Freitag was working a relief shift in the SHU control tower when she witnessed Inmate X standing naked in the exercise yard masturbating. Freitag opened a prison pod door and directed Inmate X, over an intercom, to return to his cell, at which point he ripped a temperature gauge off the pod wall, screamed sexually derogatory obscenities, and threatened to kill her. Freitag was instructed by her direct supervisor not to document the incident, but she nevertheless completed a disciplinary report, or 115 Form, charging Inmate X with threatening a public official. Freitag reported several additional incidents of inmate exhibitionist masturbation in late 1998 in documents called "chronos," or 128 Forms, which are placed in inmates' central files but ordinarily do not form the basis for disciplinary action. In one instance, Freitag was working a meal shift in the SHU when an inmate ejaculated onto a tray she was clearing.

In early January 1999, Freitag accepted a permanent position in the SHU. Shortly thereafter, on January 6, she was in the SHU control tower when she witnessed Inmate Y openly masturbating in the prison yard. Freitag demanded that Inmate Y stop, but he refused; he continued to masturbate in view of the control tower for approximately thirty minutes until his yard shift ended. Freitag documented the incident in a 128 Form. On February 17, 1999, Inmate Z exited the upper tier shower room and, while looking at Freitag in the control tower, into which he had a direct view from the tier, masturbated while shouting her name and proclaiming that he was "coming inside" her. Freitag completed a 128 Form detailing the incident and attempted to discipline Inmate Z with ten days of escort status, which was approved by a supervising captain. However, Lieutenant David Carmichael discarded the 128 Form and informed Freitag that she could not place Inmate Z on escort status, explaining to her that she was the only officer who had a problem with Inmate Z, and that "it's only sex."
On March 17, Inmate X again openly masturbated in the SHU yard while Freitag was on duty in the control tower. She submitted a 115 Form charging Inmate X with indecent exposure, to which he pled guilty, but he was not assessed good-time credit forfeiture as a result of the disciplinary proceeding because prison administrators delayed in processing the paperwork. Also on March 17, Freitag sent a memorandum to Barry O'Neill, Carmichael's supervisor, with a copy to Robert Ayers, the warden at Pelican Bay, complaining that her reports of inmate misbehavior were being "denied or thrown away," thus causing her "authority and discretion [to be] undermined." On March 18, she issued Inmate X another 115 Form for indecent exposure.
On April 7, 1999, Inmate X requested that Freitag open the shower door to allow him to return to his cell. When she did so, he pushed his towel into the doorway and, standing naked, masturbated in front of her until she and 534 another correctional officer escorted him back to his cell. Freitag submitted a 115 Form charging Inmate *534 X with indecent exposure, but the violation was subsequently changed by a supervisor to willful delay of a peace officer, a lower-level offense. Later that day, Freitag sent a letter to Teresa Schwartz, the associate warden in charge of the SHU, chronicling the conduct of Inmates X and Z, complaining that her supervisors were "procrastinating" in responding to the sexually abusive behavior, and recommending enforcement of the CDCR's policy of referring repeat offenders to the district attorney's office for prosecution. She also stated: "For the supervisors' calloused exchange of me, and other female staff, as a sexual favor to gain [Inmate X's] cooperation, I should be recompensed for my injury."
On April 15, 1999, Freitag wrote a letter to Cal Terhune, the CDCR's director, in which she alleged that Inmate X was "causing a hostile worksite," that her "[s]upervisors have delayed responding and been reluctant to respond," and that "[t]here has been no support to prosecute[Inmate X] for his sexual attacks and harassment." Several days later, on April 23, Freitag was called to a meeting with Schwartz and O'Neill. At the meeting, Schwartz informed Freitag that she was being relieved of her duty in the SHU pending a psychiatric evaluation; Schwartz stated that the prison was taking the action in response to Freitag's "incoherent" memoranda regarding inmate harassment. Schwartz also threatened to terminate her. Freitag was permitted to return to the SHU only after the evaluation deemed her fit for duty.
On July 7, the day after Freitag returned to the SHU, she witnessed Inmate Y masturbating in the yard. She submitted a 115 Form charging him with indecent exposure, but her supervisors declined her recommendation that he be disciplined with escort status. On July 15, Freitag wrote another memorandum to Ayers requesting that officers in the SHU receive additional training on how to manage inmates with behavioral problems. She detailed an incident that occurred the day before in which Inmate Y refused to be handcuffed by two correctional officers, one of whom allegedly responded by slamming the cuff port door on the prisoner's hands.
On July 26, Pelican Bay initiated an internal affairs (IA) investigation of Freitag. The investigation was initiated by Ayers and arose from purported factual inaccuracies in Freitag's memorandum regarding the July 14 incident involving Inmate Y. On August 6, Ayers initiated another IA investigation of Freitag's allegations that her supervisors were destroying her disciplinary reports. The request submitted by Ayers alleged that Freitag had made "slanderous accusations against other staff."
On August 11, 1999, Freitag filed a formal complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). She alleged that she had been sexually harassed by Pelican Bay inmates, that she complained about the harassment to supervisors Glen Rodman, Carmichael, Schwartz, Ayers, and Terhune, that "my

employer did not take the proper steps to address my complaint," and that in retaliation for her complaints she was threatened by Schwartz with termination and temporarily relieved of duty in the SHU. Augustine Lopez, the prison's Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinator, prepared the institution's response, which concluded that Freitag's allegations were unsubstantiated. As part of his investigation, Lopez interviewed Ayers and several other Pelican Bay administrators, but he acknowledges that he later destroyed the notes from those interviews.
535 *535 On August 17, 1999, Freitag sent a letter to California State Senator Richard Polanco in which she alleged that she and other female correctional officers were regularly subjected to sexually abusive behavior in the SHU and that supervisors failed to respond adequately to her complaints regarding the inmate conduct. She also claimed that her disciplinary reports either were ignored completely or were not acted upon in sufficient time to permit the disciplining of inmates. She sent a second letter to Polanco dated September 24, 1999, with a copy to Terhune, in which she further described the mistreatment that she received from Pelican Bay inmates and staff. In October, Polanco contacted the California Office of the Inspector General (IG), a state agency that oversees the CDCR, and requested that it initiate an investigation of the allegations in Freitag's letters. The IG sent several investigators, including Senior Deputy Inspector General Richard Ramsdell, to Pelican Bay; from November to December 1999, they interviewed dozens of prison inmates and employees, including Freitag, reviewed the inmates' central files, and contacted the Del Norte County District Attorney's Office regarding the referral of indecent exposure complaints from the prison. Freitag also exchanged letters with Ramsdell during the investigation.
The IG published a report of its investigation on July 11, 2000. The findings were uniformly and pointedly damning: The agency determined that (1) inmates in the SHU "regularly subject female correctional officers to lewd exhibitionism and exhibitionist masturbation"; (2) "supervisors and top administrative staff at Pelican Bay have not responded appropriately to complaints about inmates directing exhibitionist masturbation toward female staff members and have made little effort to take advantage of the options available to control exhibitionist masturbation behavior"; (3) "the security housing unit is not effectively using the prison disciplinary process and available legal sanctions in handling exhibitionist masturbation cases"; (4) Pelican Bay had "stopped referring exhibitionist masturbation cases to the district attorney"; and (5) Warden Ayers had taken "no definitive actions . . . to address exhibitionist masturbation directed at female correctional officers by male inmates." The IG also reported that Lopez informed one state investigator that "[t]he reason the inmates hit on [the female correctional officers] is that they're a bunch of lesbians."
In addition to the two IA investigations of her initiated by Ayers in July and August 1999, Freitag was targeted by at least two more investigations following her DFEH complaint and letters to Polanco. On September 15, 1999, Ayers requested an IA investigation regarding Freitag's purported improper use of state resources, such as copy machines and telephones, for the purpose of pursuing her complaints. On October 22, Correctional Captain Paul Dillard sent Ayers a memorandum recommending that IA investigate allegedly false claims by Freitag that a correctional officer contaminated an inmate's food in May of that year. Freitag was formally interviewed regarding the latter charge on November 19, 1999.
On January 13, 2000, while the IG's investigation was being conducted, Schwartz sent Freitag a preliminary notice of adverse action stemming from the IA investigation into Freitag's report of the July 14, 1999, incident involving Inmate Y. Ayers recommended that Freitag be suspended for five days as a result of the investigation's determination that she falsified facts in her written memorandum describing the incident. On February 8, while the 536 agency investigation was still in *536 progress, Schwartz sent a second notice of adverse action, this time arising out of the prison's finding that Freitag made false accusations regarding her fellow officer contaminating the inmate's food. As a result of the findings of the two IA investigations, Freitag was terminated shortly before the Office of the Inspector General issued its report. Freitag then initiated an administrative appeal of her termination before the California State Personnel Board. As far as the record before us reveals, the administrative appeal was still pending at the time the parties filed their briefs with this court.

II
Freitag filed her initial complaint in the district court on June 27, 2000. She alleged that (1) the CDCR is liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for sexual harassment pursuant to a hostile work environment theory; (2) the CDCR is liable under Title VII for retaliation; (3) Ayers, Schwartz, Carmichael, Rodman, Dillard, O'Neill, George Neotti,[2] and Lopez are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating various of her constitutional rights; and (4) all of the defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for conspiring to violate her constitutional rights. Freitag sought compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief.
On March 25, 2002, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It denied the motion with respect to the following claims: (1) the Title VII hostile work environment claim against the CDCR, (2) the Title VII retaliation claim against the CDCR based upon adverse employment actions not including Freitag's termination, and (3) the § 1983 claim that the individual defendants retaliated against Freitag in violation of her First Amendment rights. A jury trial commenced in March 2003. Freitag and several of her fellow female correctional officers testified regarding the sexually abusive environment in the SHU and the lack of an adequate institutional response. Freitag's expert on prison administration, William Katsaris, testified that Pelican Bay was "the only institution I have come across that has a serious problem with [exhibitionist masturbation]." He stated that prisons throughout the country have controlled the problem in part by installing semi-opaque finish to control booth windows so that officers can see out but inmates cannot see in.[3] He further testified that Pelican Bay administrators could have taken, but failed to take, other corrective actions such as imposing serious disciplinary measures for sexual misconduct, restraining sexually abusive inmates or taking away their yard privileges, and working with the district attorney's office to prosecute serious and repeat offenders. In addition, the IG's report was admitted into evidence over the defendants' objection, and Ramsdell testified extensively regarding the agency's investigation into Freitag's complaints and the prison's failure to take the requisite corrective actions.
537 The jury returned a unanimous verdict on April 3, 2003. It found the CDCR *537 liable under Title VII for sexual harassment and retaliation, and Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez liable under § 1983 for retaliation in violation of Freitag's First Amendment rights. It awarded Freitag $500,000 in economic damages and $100,000 in noneconomic damages, and $100 in punitive damages against each Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez. The verdict form did not require the jury to determine how much each defendant was liable for on each claim it 0907 found the CDCR and Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of compensatory damages.
On May 15, 2003, Freitag moved to amend the judgment to include permanent injunctive relief. The district court granted her motion in part, finding that "this Court has the authority to fashion an injunction that benefits not only Plaintiff, but all female correctional officers and other staff members at Pelican Bay who have been or may be harmed by CDC's unlawful conduct." The court entered the following permanent injunction:
The California Department of Corrections,[4] its agents, officers, successors in office, employees and all persons acting in concert or participating with the department are permanently enjoined from engaging in any employment practices, or taking any other personnel action, for the purpose or with the effect of maintaining a sexually hostile work environment at Pelican Bay State Prison, or otherwise discriminating against any Pelican Bay State Prison employee on the basis of sex. The California Department of Corrections, its agents, officers, successors in office, employees and all persons acting in concert or participating with the department are further enjoined from engaging in any employment practices, or taking any other personnel action, for the purpose or with the effect of retaliating against any Pelican Bay State Prison employee for complaining about, or otherwise opposing, practices made unlawful by Title VII.
The district court denied Freitag's request that the court mandate specific measures to alleviate the problems she raised, opting instead to refer the matter to a special master with the authority to monitor compliance with the injunction and to develop a remedial plan. The court also awarded Freitag attorneys' fees.

The CDCR, Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez appealed, raising the following arguments: (1) the CDCR cannot as a matter of law be liable under Title VII for a hostile work environment created by inmates and, even if it could be liable, substantial evidence does not support the jury's verdict of liability in this case; (2) substantial evidence does not support the jury's verdict that the CDCR is liable for retaliation under Title VII; (3) substantial evidence does not support the verdict against Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez; (4) the award of compensatory and punitive damages is not supported by substantial evidence; and (5) the district court abused its discretion in granting injunctive relief.
III
We review a district court's conclusions of law de novo. See Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.2004). A jury's verdict, including a damages award, must be upheld if supported by "substantial evidence." 538 See Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 2002). The district court's grant of injunctive *538 relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and for the application of correct legal principles. See Fortyune v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1079 (9th Cir.2004).
IV
Hostile Work Environment
We first address the CDCR's contention that it cannot, as a matter of law, be liable under Title VII for maintaining a hostile work environment caused by inmate misconduct. The contention is unsupported by the entire weight of case authority in this circuit and others, and we are compelled to reject it.
In the Ninth Circuit, employers are liable for harassing conduct by non-employees "where the employer either ratifies or acquiesces in the harassment by not taking immediate and/or corrective actions when it knew or should have known of the conduct." Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 107 F.3d 754, 756 (9th Cir.1997); see also Little v. Windermere Relocation, Inc., 301 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir.2002). In recognizing that employers may be liable for third-party conduct, we, along with several other circuits, see, e.g., Berry v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 260 F.3d 803, 811-12 (7th Cir.2001); Turnbull v. Topeka State Hosp., 255 F.3d 1238, 1244 (10th Cir.2001); Crist v. Focus Homes, Inc., 122 F.3d 1107, 1111 (8th Cir.1997), have relied in part upon a regulation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that provides that employers may be held liable for the acts of non-employees where the employer "knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action." 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(e). This theory of liability is grounded not in the harassing act itself 0907 i.e., inmate misconduct0907but rather in the employer's "negligence and ratification" of the harassment through its failure to take appropriate and reasonable responsive action. See Galdamez v. Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir.2005).
Notwithstanding the clarity of our law on this point, the defendants request that we become the first court in the country to carve out an exception to Title VII whereby prisons, due to their distinctive character and problems, and in particular their "inherently hostile environment," are immune from lawsuits by correctional officers arising from sexual harassment by inmates. In support of this position, the defendants cite several cases in which federal courts have treated prisons differently in the context of civil rights claims. For example, in Slayton v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 206 F.3d 669, 677 (6th Cir.2000), in which a female correctional officer at a juvenile detention center alleged that the institution maintained a sexually hostile work environment caused in large part by inmate misconduct, the Sixth Circuit noted:
Prisoners, by definition, have breached prevailing societal norms in fundamentally corrosive ways. By choosing to work in a prison, corrections personnel have acknowledged and accepted the probability they will face inappropriate and socially deviant behavior.
Nevertheless, the Slayton court upheld a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that, although allegations of inmate misconduct alone cannot support a hostile work environment claim, "this general rule against prison liability for inmate conduct does not apply when the institution fails to take appropriate steps to remedy or prevent illegal inmate behavior." Id.

The defendants also cite the following language from Powell v. Morris, 37 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1017 (S.D.Ohio 1999) :

539

The propensity of courts to decline imposing liability for prisoner acts is based *539 on solid logical

and practical foundations: anyone who works at a prison . . . must expect some off-color

interactions. . . . It is absurd to expect that a prison can actually stop all obscene comments and

conduct from its inmates0907 people who have been deemed unsuited to live in normal society.

However, the defendants neglect to cite the very next sentence of the Powell opinion: "The most we can expect and require prisons to do is to implement and enforce policies reasonably calculated to minimize such harassment and protect the safety of its employees." Id. The defendants also cited Powell in the district court but there too failed to include the abovementioned sentence, an act the district judge characterized as "illustrative of Defendants' tendency to mischaracterize the relevant case law." Notably, although the defendants cite Powell in support of their argument that "Title VII does not impose liability on a prison employer for a hostile work environment caused by inmates under a negligence theory of direct liability," they fail to refer to a passage in the opinion that is far more pertinent to the present case: "Courts have repeatedly declined to impose sexual harassment liability upon correctional institutions for the sexually offensive conduct of inmates, as long as the defendant institution took proper preventative and remedial steps with regard to inmate behavior." Id. (emphasis added).

In short, the defendants cite no authority, and we have found none, holding that prisons are uniquely exempt from liability for sexual harassment under Title VII, nor have they proffered any evidence that Congress intended prison employers to be thus exempt. Further, we see no persuasive argument, legal or otherwise, to support the novel position that the defendants take on this issue. Nothing in the law suggests that prison officials may ignore sexually hostile conduct and refrain from taking corrective actions that would safeguard the rights of the victims, whether they be guards or inmates. As the district court found, "even in an inherently dangerous working environment, the focus remains on whether the employer took reasonable measures to make the workplace as safe as possible." The CDCR is not, by simple virtue of its status as a correctional institution, immune under Title VII from a legal obligation to take such measures and to protect its employees to the extent possible from inmate sexual abuse.

The next question is whether substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that the CDCR is liable for maintaining a hostile work environment in this case. A plaintiff asserting a Title VII claim under a hostile work environment theory must show (1) the existence of a hostile work environment to which the plaintiff was subjected, and (2) that the employer is liable for the harassment that caused the hostile environment to exist. See Little, 301 F.3d at 966 (citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-89, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998)). To establish the existence of a hostile work environment, "a plaintiff must prove that (1) she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, (2) this conduct was unwelcome, and (3) this conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of . . . employment and create an abusive working environment." Id. (internal quotations omitted). The third element requires us to consider the totality of the circumstances and whether the harassment was both objectively and subjectively abusive. Id. With respect to the question of liability for harassment caused by a third party, the employer's corrective measures must be 540 "reasonably calculated to end the *540 harassment"; the reasonableness of the corrective action will depend on, inter alia, the employer's ability to stop the harassment and the promptness of the response. See Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 882 (9th Cir.1991) (internal quotations omitted); see also Galdamez, 415 F.3d at 1024.

The jury found that Freitag was subjected to a hostile work environment due to inmate sexual misconduct, and that the CDCR was liable because it failed to take prompt and effective remedial action reasonably calculated to address the misconduct. We conclude with little difficulty that substantial evidence supports each finding. With respect to the finding that Freitag was subjected to a hostile employment environment: First, there is sufficient evidence that Freitag was repeatedly exposed to conduct of a sexual nature. The jury heard testimony and reviewed exhibits that established that Freitag witnessed inmates masturbating in an exhibitionist manner, oftentimes while they directed verbal taunts and crude remarks at her. Second, the defendants' argument to the contrary notwithstanding, there was substantial evidence that Freitag did not welcome the sexually abusive conduct merely by accepting a job in the SHU. Although it certainly would have been reasonable for Freitag to

anticipate substantial inmate misbehavior, given the severity of the crimes committed by those incarcerated at Pelican Bay, see Slayton, 206 F.3d at 677, she also had reason to expect that prison officials would seek in good faith to control the most extreme forms of sexual misconduct. In any event, contemplating some difficulties is a far cry from welcoming a constant barrage of sexual abuse that, according to the testimony at trial, was allowed to continue virtually unfettered for the duration of Freitag's employment at the prison. Third, substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that the exhibitionist masturbation was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute abuse. On this point, the defendants argue that, following Freitag's April 7, 1999 memorandum to Schwartz, which they characterize as her first complaint to prison administrators, she "witnessed only three incidents of inmate masturbation." Even accepting the defendants' argument that the CDCR did not know about such behavior until April 7, 1999, a single incident of severe abuse can constitute a hostile work environment. See Little, 301 F.3d at 967 (citing Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001)). More important, however, the defendants' time line misrepresents the record it 0907 ignores Freitag's March 17, 1999 memorandum to O'Neill and Ayers in which she complained that her disciplinary reports on inmate sexual misconduct were being ignored. The defendants' tally thus does not account for the March 18 and April 7 incidents in which Freitag was exposed to exhibitionist masturbation. We find no basis to overturn the jury's determination on this issue.
The jury's second principal finding 0907that the CDCR failed to take prompt, corrective, and reasonable action to address the issue of inmate sexual misconduct is 0907 also supported by substantial evidence. The jury heard testimony on this question from, among others, Katsaris, who testified that Pelican Bay is the only institution he has encountered with such a pervasive problem of inmate sexual misconduct. He testified regarding the corrective measures that other prisons have undertaken but that Pelican Bay had to that point ignored, including installing semi-opaque film on control towers and cells and imposing serious disciplinary measures on repeat 541 offenders. The jury *541 also had before it the IG's report,[5] which enumerated the agency's findings that, among other things, the administrative staff at Pelican Bay had not responded appropriately to the concerns expressed by female officers about exhibitionist masturbation, and the institution had not taken adequate steps to correct the problem. The defendants' own brief acknowledges that "[t]he correctional staff controls inmates primarily by the inmate disciplinary process, physical restraints, revocation of privileges, and referral for criminal prosecution," all measures the evidence shows it failed to invoke sufficiently in this case.[6] Accordingly, there was more than enough evidence to support the jury's finding that the prison failed to respond adequately or reasonably to the sexual abuse directed at Freitag and other female correctional officers.
For these reasons, we affirm the jury's verdict that the CDCR may be, and is in this case, liable under Title VII for maintaining a hostile work environment at Pelican Bay.
Title VII Retaliation
The defendants urge that substantial evidence does not support the jury's finding that the CDCR is liable under Title VII for retaliating against Freitag. A plaintiff may meet his burden of proof for a claim of retaliation under Title VII by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) involvement in protected activity opposing an unlawful employment practice, (2) an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)). With respect to the first element, "opposition clause protection will be accorded whenever the opposition is based on a reasonable belief that the employer has engaged in an unlawful employment practice." Moyo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d 982, 984 (9th Cir.1994) (internal quotes omitted) (emphasis in original).
542 *542 The defendants make two related arguments as to CDCR retaliation. First, they contend that Freitag's belief that she opposed an unlawful employment action was unreasonable because "Title VII proscribes neither harassment by prison inmates nor a prison's failure to take adequate steps to address the harassment." That argument is foreclosed by our analysis in the previous section, which requires no repetition here. Second, the defendants argue that "[a]n employer cannot engage in unlawful retaliation if it does not know the employee has opposed or is opposing a violation of Title VII." To the extent that their contention is that they did not know Freitag was opposing unlawful sexual harassment, it is belied by (1) Freitag's April 7, 1999 memorandum to Schwartz, which stated that she should be "recompensed" for the injury she suffered due to the inmate misconduct she

described and the prison's failure to respond; (2) her April 15, 1999, memorandum to Terhune, which alleged that the prison was doing nothing to address the "hostile worksite" created by inmate exhibitionist masturbation; and (3) her filing of a formal complaint with DFEH in August 1999 specifically alleging retaliation and harassment based upon her sex. To the extent that the defendants argue that they did not understand that the facts Freitag alleged regarding their failure to respond to the problems constituted a violation of Title VII, their argument is also without merit. The dispositive question is not whether the administrators at Pelican Bay believed that their failure to correct the complained of conditions constituted a violation of Title VII, but rather (1) whether they were aware that Freitag had "opposed" that failure and (2) whether Freitag's belief that their conduct was unlawful was reasonable. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 252-53, 101 S.Ct. 1089. Notwithstanding the defendants' erroneous opinion of the law, they had the requisite knowledge regarding Freitag's complaints. As Freitag points out in her brief, "the inability of the defendants to grasp the mandate of Title VII, particularly in light of the clear language of 29 C.F.R. 1604.11, [ ] did not give them carte blanche to retaliate against [her] just because she evidently understood the law better than they did."

Because the defendants raise no meritorious challenge to the jury's finding that the CDCR is liable under Title VII for retaliating against Freitag, we affirm the verdict on this claim.[7]

First Amendment Retaliation

543 The jury found that Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez retaliated against *543 Freitag in violation of her First Amendment rights. On appeal, the defendants challenge the jury's finding with respect to each element required to establish a First Amendment claim against a public employer: (1) The employee engaged in constitutionally protected speech, (2) the employer took adverse employment action against the employee, and (3) the employee's speech was a "substantial or motivating" factor in the adverse action. See Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2003). There can be no serious dispute that substantial evidence supports the jury's findings that the second and third elements were met with respect to Ayers and Schwartz.[8] Ayers initiated several IA investigations of Freitag shortly after she contacted Polanco, and Schwartz requested at least one IA investigation in the months after Freitag's complaints of sexual harassment. Both also approved her suspension and termination,[9] and there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have inferred that Freitag's speech was a substantial or motivating factor in these adverse actions. See Coszalter, 320 F.3d at 977 (holding that a proximity in time of between three and eight months could support an inference of retaliation). However, because the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006), modified prior First Amendment jurisprudence with respect to the first element 0907employee protected speech0907we remand Freitag's § 1983 claim to the district court for reconsideration in light of that decision.[10]

In Ceballos, the Supreme Court considered whether an internal memorandum written by a deputy district attorney to his supervisors regarding what he believed to be misconduct in an investigation was protected speech under the First Amendment. 126 S.Ct. at 1955-57. It concluded that, under Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983), the issue is not only whether the speech in question addresses a matter of public concern, but also whether it is made as a citizen. See id. at 1956 (citing Connick, 461 U.S. at 146-47, 103 S.Ct. 1684). The Court then determined that Ceballos did not speak as a citizen when he wrote the memorandum and thus did not engage in constitutionally protected speech, holding:

The controlling factor in Ceballos' case is that his expressions were made pursuant to his duties

as a calendar deputy. That consideration0907the fact that Ceballos spoke as a prosecutor fulfilling his

responsibility to advise his supervisor about how best to proceed with a pending

case0907distinguishes Ceballos' case from those in which the First Amendment provides protection

544

against discipline. We hold that when public employees *544 make statements pursuant to their

official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the

Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.

Id. at 1959-60 (internal citations omitted). Ceballos's First Amendment claim failed because, "[w]hen he went to work and performed the tasks he was paid to perform, Ceballos acted as a government employee" as opposed to a citizen for purposes of the First Amendment. Id. at 1960.

The Court in Ceballos relied in large part upon its ruling in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). It considered the case a "useful starting point" in its First Amendment analysis, and the speech at issue in Pickering a material contrast to that in the case before it. 126 S.Ct. at 1957. In Pickering, a school teacher wrote a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the school board's allocation of financial resources and the district superintendent's alleged attempt to prevent teachers from opposing a proposed school bond. 391 U.S. at 566, 88 S.Ct. 1731. The teacher was subsequently dismissed and he sued, claiming that the letter was protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 567, 88 S.Ct. 1731. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the teacher did not, by accepting his job, "relinquish the First Amendment rights [he] would otherwise enjoy as[a] citizen[ ] to comment on matters of public interest." Id. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731. In addition, the Court noted that teachers are
the members of a community most likely to have informed and definite opinions as to how funds allotted to the operation of the schools should be spent. Accordingly, it is essential that they be able to speak out freely on such questions without fear of retaliatory dismissal.
Id. at 572, 88 S.Ct. 1731.
We are confronted with two issues: (1) whether the jury was instructed to consider only speech that, in light of Ceballos, is protected under the First Amendment, and (2) whether, if the jury was permitted to consider speech that is not protected, the instruction was harmless. With respect to the first issue, the jury was instructed in pertinent part as follows:
Examples of speech protected by the First Amendment include:
(a) Reporting sexually hostile inmate conduct to agents of the California Department of Corrections, either formally or informally;
(b) Documenting Pelican Bay State Prison's responses or failures to respond to Plaintiff's reports of sexually hostile inmate conduct;
(c) Informing Cal Terhune, Director of the California Department of Corrections, of either the inmates' sexually hostile conduct or of Pelican Bay State Prison's responses or failures to respond;
(d) Informing State Senator Richard Polanco either of sexually hostile conduct or of the Pelican Bay State Prison's responses or failures to respond;
(e) Reporting either the sexually hostile conduct or Pelican Bay State Prison's responses or failures to respond to the Office of the Inspector General; or
(f) Cooperation with the investigation conducted by the Office of the Inspector General.
The defendants proffer two arguments why, in view of Ceballos, this instruction is erroneous and requires us to reverse the jury's verdict with respect to the § 1983 claim. First, they assert that Freitag did not in any instance 545 speak "as a citizen" for *545 purposes of constitutional analysis. Second, they contend that Freitag's speech did not address a matter of public concern. We disagree with respect to items (d), (e), and (f) 0907Freitag's letters to Senator Polanco and her written and oral communications with the Inspector General 0907all of which is related to the sexual abuse that she and other female correctional officers suffered at Pelican Bay. We think it clear that these communications are protected under the First Amendment.
With respect to the defendants' first argument, Pickering and Ceballos require the conclusion that Freitag acted as a citizen when she wrote letters to Senator Polanco and communicated with the Inspector General regarding her complaints of sexual harassment. Her right to complain both to an elected public official and to an independent state agency is guaranteed to any citizen in a democratic society regardless of his status as a public employee. See Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731. Indeed, these particular communications undoubtedly "bore similarities to letters submitted by numerous citizens every day." Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. at 1960 (citing Pickering). Under Ceballos, Freitag does not lose her right to speak as a citizen simply because she initiated the

communications while at work or because they concerned the subject matter of her employment. Id. at 1959. The critical inquiry is instead whether Freitag engaged in the relevant speech "pursuant to [her] official duties." 126 S.Ct. at 1960. With respect to her contact with Senator Polanco and the IG, the answer is "No."[11] It was certainly not part of her official tasks to complain to the Senator or the IG about the state's failure to perform its duties properly, and specifically its failure to take corrective action to eliminate sexual harassment in its workplace. Rather, it was Freitag's responsibility as a citizen to expose such official malfeasance to broader scrutiny. Accordingly, in these instances, for purposes of the First Amendment she spoke as a citizen.
As to the defendants' second argument that Freitag's complaints did not address a matter of public concern, we strongly disagree. Her assertions that inmates at Pelican Bay engaged in sexually abusive behavior with respect to the female guards while the prison's administrators failed to take appropriate corrective measures is "relevan[t] to the public's evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies." Coszalter, 320 F.3d at 973-74. Notably, several female correctional officers, including Freitag, testified at trial that the hostile work environment at Pelican Bay made it very difficult for them to perform their duties, and Katsaris testified that, in such circumstances, the prison's authority over its inmates is significantly eroded. Further, although the proper administration of our prisons generally is undoubtedly of great public interest, the specific allegations in this case address a matter of acute concern to the entire community. A vast majority of our state's prisoners will reenter the general population some day, some sooner than others.[12] It certainly would be of grave concern if those inmates were being 546 released into our neighborhoods *546 from an environment in which the State of California condoned sexually abusive behavior and the harassment of women.
For these reasons, we hold that Freitag's communications with Senator Polanco and the California Inspector General constitute constitutionally protected speech. However, under the district court's instruction, those were not the only communications the jury was entitled to consider in determining whether Ayers and Schwartz retaliated against Freitag in violation of her First Amendment rights. The relevant jury instruction also listed, as examples of protected speech, Freitag's internal reports of inmate sexual misconduct and documentation of the prison's failure to respond, as well as her communications with Terhune, the director of the CDCR. To the extent that the jury may have considered internal forms prepared by Freitag, it is clear that, under Ceballos, such activity is not constitutionally protected. For purposes of First Amendment analysis, Freitag submitted those reports pursuant to her official duties as a correctional officer and thus not in her capacity as a citizen. Whether Freitag's April 15, 1999 letter to Terhune is protected under the First Amendment is a closer question. We are unsure whether prison guards are expected to air complaints regarding the conditions in their prisons all the way up to the Director of the CDCR at the state capitol in Sacramento. We are not aware, for example, what the union contract provides with respect to the persons to whom such grievances may or must be presented. The district court, having presided over this and related litigation for several years, may be in a better position to make the relevant factual determinations and, accordingly, we remand to it the issue of whether the Terhune letter is covered by the First Amendment.
Because the relevant instruction permitted the jury to consider, along with speech that we hold to be constitutionally protected, at least some unprotected speech as well, we remand Freitag's § 1983 claim to the district court for reconsideration. On remand, the district court shall make two determinations: (1) whether the Terhune letter constitutes protected speech, and (2) whether the jury instruction, which included as examples of protected speech either two or three items of unprotected speech, was more probably than not harmless. See Swinton, 270 F.3d at 805. In other words, is it more likely than not that the jury verdict was not affected by the erroneous inclusion of the two or three examples of unprotected speech? Given the district judge's expertise and his familiarity with the facts in the lengthy trial over which he presided, we think that he is best equipped to answer these questions in the first instance.
Damages
The defendants also challenge the jury's damages award, arguing that it is not supported by substantial evidence. The jury heard testimony from two expert witnesses regarding the economic damages that Freitag suffered as a result of the harassment and retaliation inflicted upon her by the CDCR and Pelican Bay prison administrators, as well as testimony from her treating psychiatrist regarding non-economic damages resulting from the same. The jury determined that, as a result of the harassment and the various retaliatory acts by the

defendants, including the internal affairs investigations that eventually led to Freitag's termination, and the termination itself, she suffered $500,000 in economic damages. It also found that, as a result of the defendants' actions, she suffered $100,000 in non-economic damages.
547 *547 The special verdict form did not require the jury to determine how much each defendant is liable for under each claim. Instead, the jury found all four appellants0907 the CDCR, Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez (whom we have ordered dismissed)0907jointly and severally liable for the entire $600,000 in compensatory damages. The defendants do not challenge on appeal the fact that the jury held them jointly and severally liable for the entire award. They argue only that the amount is not supported by substantial evidence.
Assuming that the jury's findings as to all of the various claims were to stand, we would have no difficulty holding that the total sum awarded was supported by substantial evidence. We are left in a difficult position vis-á-vis the damages award, however, because although we affirm the jury's verdict with respect to Freitag's Title VII claims, we are remanding her § 1983 claim. We do not wish to speculate whether the entire amount of compensatory damages would be justified if only Freitag's Title VII claims remained following the district court's reconsideration on remand, or what effect a modification of the verdict as to the § 1983 claim might have on the amount to be awarded. We prefer to leave that question to the district court for its initial review, if such review is necessary after it has addressed the harmless error question we have asked it to consider with respect to the § 1983 claim. Thus, we remand the jury's damages award with instructions to reconsider, if necessary, whether the $600,000 award of compensatory damages remains valid. See Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1406 (9th Cir.1994). Because the award of $100 in punitive damages against each Ayers and Schwartz was in connection with the § 1983 claim, we remand that award for reconsideration, if necessary, as well. In addition, because the district court may wish to reconsider the extent to which Freitag remains a prevailing party after it determines what, if any, adjustments it must make with respect to liability and damages, we also remand the issue of attorneys' fees for reconsideration, if necessary.
Injunctive Relief
The defendants assert that the district court abused its discretion in granting permanent injunctive relief. The sole contention in support of their argument is that Freitag no longer works for the CDCR and thus cannot benefit from the injunction.
The defendants cite only Rau v. Apple-Rio Management Company, Inc., 85 F.Supp.2d 1344 (N.D.Ga.1999), in which the district court granted a plaintiff limited injunctive relief following a favorable jury verdict on her Title VII claims. The court did not grant the plaintiff's request that her employer remove documents from her personnel file in part because she was no longer an employee, despite the fact that she opined that she could be reinstated if successful in a separate claim for constructive discharge. Rau, 85 F.Supp.2d at 1351 n. 4. The defendants urge that Freitag's re-employment with the CDCR is similarly "speculative," and thus that injunctive relief on her behalf is not appropriate.
Without endorsing the Georgia district court decision, we acknowledge that Freitag's reinstatement to employment with the CDCR is not certain. Nevertheless, when the district court issued its injunction, Freitag was still in the process of pursuing her state administrative appeal in which she maintains that she is entitled to retain her position as a correctional officer at Pelican Bay. Our decision in Nanty v. Barrows Co., 660 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir.1981) (overruled on other grounds, O'Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., 79 F.3d 756 (9th Cir.1996)), 548 is pertinent. In *548 Nanty, we held that a Native American truck driver was unlawfully discriminated against under Title VII when a company failed to hire him because of his race. 660 F.2d at 1332. Although we remanded Nanty's request for an injunction requiring the company to hire him because the record was not clear whether it would have given him the job absent its discriminatory actions, we held that he nevertheless was entitled to an injunction prohibiting the company from discriminating on the basis of race in its future hiring. Id. at 1333. We affirmed the injunction in part because the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to the job he sought had not been finally resolved and, thus, he retained a personal interest in ensuring that the company's discriminatory activity be enjoined. See id.
In California, permanent state employees possess a property interest in their job, guaranteed by statute, with attendant due process rights in their continued employment. See Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., 15 Cal.3d 194,

124 Cal.Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d 774, 784 (1975). That interest and the attendant rights are not lost upon termination but continue post-termination pending the final resolution of the administrative proceeding before the Personnel Board. See id. at 789; see also CAL. GOV'T CODE §§ 19575-78. The administrative process that will determine whether Freitag remains entitled to her job with the CDCR is pending, and thus her property interest and due process rights have not been extinguished. More important, at the time the district court issued the injunction, Freitag possessed a property interest in her job and thus possessed a sufficient connection to her employment with the prison to support the issuance of an injunction in her favor. We conclude, as did the district court, that she has standing to seek an injunction affecting the employment practices of the CDCR.
V
There was overwhelming evidence presented to the jury that the CDCR maintained a hostile work environment at Pelican Bay by failing to take prompt and reasonable corrective action with respect to Freitag's multiple complaints regarding inmate exhibitionist masturbation directed at her and other female correctional officers. There was also overwhelming evidence that agents of the CDCR retaliated against Freitag as a result of those complaints. For these reasons, we affirm the jury's verdict with respect to the CDCR's liability under Title VII. However, due to an intervening Supreme Court decision, we remand for reconsideration of the jury's finding that Freitag's superiors retaliated against her in violation of her First Amendment rights in light of the instructional error regarding constitutionally protected speech. In this connection, we direct the district court to determine whether such error was harmless. Accordingly, we remand the damages award and attorneys' fees award as well. Because of insufficiency of the evidence, we reverse the § 1983 judgment against Lopez. Finally, we affirm the district court's grant of injunctive relief.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART.
[1] The material facts in this case are not in dispute.
[2] Neotti was Pelican Bay's employee relations officer.
[3] Pelican Bay did install opaque material on SHU cell doors, which prevented officers from viewing celled inmates from the waist down, but it did not do so until late 2000 or early 2001, after Freitag was terminated. Further, it did not install the material on control booth windows and thus did not address the problem of inmates masturbating in the prison yard knowing that female correctional officers are on duty.
[4] At the time the district court granted injunctive relief, the agency was called the California Department of Corrections. In May 2005, it reorganized and changed its name to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
[5] The district court did not err in admitting the IG's report into evidence at trial. Under the hearsay exceptions for business records, FED. R. EVID. 803(6), and public records, id. 803(8), the report was afforded a presumption of reliability and trustworthiness that the defendants failed to rebut. See Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 858 (9th Cir. 1999). Specifically, Rule 803(8) allows the admission of reports of public agencies "setting forth . . . factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness." FED. R. EVID. 803(8); see also Johnson v. City of Pleasanton, 982 F.2d 350, 352 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that, under Rule 803(8), reports of public agencies shall be admitted where the challenging party fails to meet its burden to show untrustworthiness). The defendants had a fair opportunity to challenge the reliability of the report through their cross-examination of Ramsdell. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the report reliable.
[6] The jury had before it evidence offered by the defendants regarding disciplinary measures taken, including a belated referral for criminal prosecution of a principal offender after Freitag had filed her formal complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and after she had sent two letters to State Senator Polanco that precipitated the investigation by the Inspector General. The belated referral, however, attempted to address the conduct of only one of the 20 inmates who were responsible for 56 incidents of exhibitionist masturbation in the security housing unit, as identified in the Inspector General's report. Moreover, the jury heard

the Inspector General's findings that the "institution has stopped referring exhibitionist masturbation cases to the district attorney" and that "[c]ases that would be appropriate for prosecution are not referred."
[7] On June 22, 2006, the defendants submitted a letter pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) in which they request that we consider the Supreme Court's recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006). They argue that Burlington rejected the Ninth Circuit's definition of what constitutes an adverse employment action and, accordingly, that we must reverse the Title VII retaliation verdict because the jury was not instructed that the employment actions must be considered adverse by a reasonable employee. See Burlington, 126 S.Ct. at 2415. We conclude that any instructional error was harmless. The instruction given to the jury stated that an adverse action "is defined as any action that is reasonably likely to deter the plaintiff or others from engaging in protected activity." The instruction, if erroneous, was harmless because the jury almost certainly would have found that the adverse employment actions it considered with respect to Freitag's Title VII claim 0907her temporary removal from duty in the SHU, the psychiatric evaluation, and the internal affairs investigations0907would be considered materially adverse by a reasonable employee. See Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794, 805 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that an instructional error in a civil case requires reversal only where the error is not "more probably than not harmless").
[8] There is no evidence that Lopez is liable for retaliation under § 1983 because there is no evidence that he was responsible for, participated in, or even had knowledge of, any adverse employment action taken against Freitag. He did not contribute to the decision to relieve Freitag from her duty in the SHU, to refer her for psychiatric evaluation, to initiate the internal affairs investigations, or to terminate her. Thus, we reverse the jury verdict with respect to Lopez.
[9] The defendants argue that the district court's grant of summary judgment to the CDCR on Freitag's termination claim under Title VII necessarily barred consideration of her claim for termination under § 1983. That argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See Allen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting the defendants' attempt to import a Title VII standard in a § 1983 case because "the Title VII[burden-shifting] formula . . . allocates burdens of proof more favorably to defendants").
[10] Subsequent to the issuance of Ceballos, we requested supplemental briefs from the parties addressing its effect on this case.
[11] We note that one IA investigation of Freitag arose from her purported improper use of state resources while on the job. That the defendants considered Freitag's use of copy machines and telephones to complain to outsiders about the harassment to which she was subjected improper and outside the scope of her employment is further evidence that her complaints were not made pursuant to her official duties.
[12] The record is unclear as to whether any specific inmate who Freitag alleges contributed directly to the sexually hostile work environment has been released.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 463 F.3d 838 (2006)
Deanna L. FREITAG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Robert J. AYERS, Jr.; Teresa Schwartz; Augustine Lopez; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellants, and
David A. Carmichael; G. Rodman; Paul Dillard; Barry O'Neill; George Neotti, Defendants. Deanna L. Freitag, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Robert J. Ayers, Jr.; Teresa Schwartz; Augustine Lopez; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellants, and
David A. Carmichael; G. Rodman; Paul Dillard; Barry O'Neill; George Neotti, Defendants. Deanna L. Freitag, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Robert J. Ayers, Jr.; Teresa Schwartz; Augustine Lopez; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellants, and
David A. Carmichael; G. Rodman; Paul Dillard; Barry O'Neill; George Neotti, Defendants.
Nos. 03-16702, 03-17184, 03-17398.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued March 15, 2006. Submitted and Filed September 13, 2006.
8349012 *839 *840 *841 Jacob A. Appelsmith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Vincent J. Scally, Supervising *842 Deputy Attorney General, and Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for the defendants-appellants.
Pamela Y. Price and John L. Burris, Oakland, CA, and Charles Stephen Ralston, Berkeley, CA, for the plaintiffappellee.
Before STEPHEN REINHARDT, JOHN T. NOONAN, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge.
May a state department of corrections be held liable for prison officials' failure to correct a hostile work environment that is the result of male prisoners' sexual harassment of female guards? We answer that question, "Yes."
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and three Pelican Bay State Prison (Pelican Bay) administrators appeal a judgment in favor of Deanna Freitag, a former correctional officer in the prison's Secure Housing Unit. Freitag alleged that the CDCR and Pelican Bay were delinquent in addressing the sexually hostile environment created by prison inmates0907particularly in confronting the pervasive practice at Pelican Bay of inmate exhibitionist masturbation directed at female officers0907and that she was retaliated against and ultimately terminated due to her repeated complaints regarding the problem. A jury agreed, finding that the CDCR maintained a hostile work environment and retaliated against Freitag in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the three administrators retaliated against her for engaging in constitutionally protected speech in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict that the CDCR violated Freitag's rights under Title VII, but we remand her First Amendment claim to the district court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). As a result, we also remand the jury's damages award to the same extent. We affirm the district court's grant of injunctive relief, however.

I
In January 1996, Deanna Freitag transferred to Pelican Bay State Prison from Chuckwalla Valley State Prison, where she had been a correctional officer for several years, in order to be closer to her family. Pelican Bay, a maximum security prison in Crescent City, California, includes a Secure Housing Unit (SHU) which incarcerates many of the state's most violent criminals. Inmates in the SHU are subjected to harsher and more restrictive conditions than exist at any other prison in the state system.[1]
On September 12, 1998, Freitag was working a relief shift in the SHU control tower when she witnessed Inmate X standing naked in the exercise yard masturbating. Freitag opened a prison pod door and directed Inmate X, over an intercom, to return to his cell, at which point he ripped a temperature gauge off the pod wall, screamed sexually derogatory obscenities, and threatened to kill her. Freitag was instructed by her direct supervisor not to document the incident, but she nevertheless completed a disciplinary report, or 115 Form, charging Inmate X with 843 threatening a public official. Freitag reported *843 several additional incidents of inmate exhibitionist masturbation in late 1998 in documents called "chronos," or 128 Forms, which are placed in inmates' central files but ordinarily do not form the basis for disciplinary action. In one instance, Freitag was working a meal shift in the SHU when an inmate ejaculated onto a tray she was clearing.
In early January 1999, Freitag accepted a permanent position in the SHU. Shortly thereafter, on January 6, she was in the SHU control tower when she witnessed Inmate Y openly masturbating in the prison yard. Freitag demanded that Inmate Y stop, but he refused; he continued to masturbate in view of the control tower for approximately thirty minutes until his yard shift ended. Freitag documented the incident in a 128 Form. On February 17, 1999, Inmate Z exited the upper tier shower room and, while looking at Freitag in the control tower, into which he had a direct view from the tier, masturbated while shouting her name and proclaiming that he was "coming inside" her. Freitag completed a 128 Form detailing the incident and attempted to discipline Inmate Z with ten days of escort status, which was approved by a supervising captain. However, Lieutenant David Carmichael discarded the 128 Form and informed Freitag that she could not place Inmate Z on escort status, explaining to her that she was the only officer who had a problem with Inmate Z, and that "it's only sex."
On March 17, Inmate X again openly masturbated in the SHU yard while Freitag was on duty in the control tower. She submitted a 115 Form charging Inmate X with indecent exposure, to which he pled guilty, but he was not assessed good-time credit forfeiture as a result of the disciplinary proceeding because prison administrators delayed in processing the paperwork. Also on March 17, Freitag sent a memorandum to Barry O'Neill, Carmichael's supervisor, with a copy to Robert Ayers, the warden at Pelican Bay, complaining that her reports of inmate misbehavior were being "denied or thrown away," thus causing her "authority and discretion [to be] undermined." On March 18, she issued Inmate X another 115 Form for indecent exposure.
On April 7, 1999, Inmate X requested that Freitag open the shower door to allow him to return to his cell. When she did so, he pushed his towel into the doorway and, standing naked, masturbated in front of her until she and another correctional officer escorted him back to his cell. Freitag submitted a 115 Form charging Inmate X with indecent exposure, but the violation was subsequently changed by a supervisor to willful delay of a peace officer, a lower-level offense. Later that day, Freitag sent a letter to Teresa Schwartz, the associate warden in charge of the SHU, chronicling the conduct of Inmates X and Z, complaining that her supervisors were "procrastinating" in responding to the sexually abusive behavior, and recommending enforcement of the CDCR's policy of referring repeat offenders to the district attorney's office for prosecution. She also stated: "For the supervisors' calloused exchange of me, and other female staff, as a sexual favor to gain [Inmate X's] cooperation, I should be recompensed for my injury."
On April 15, 1999, Freitag wrote a letter to Cal Terhune, the CDCR's director, in which she alleged that Inmate X was "causing a hostile worksite," that her "[s]upervisors have delayed responding and been reluctant to respond," and that "[t]here has been no support to prosecute [Inmate X] for his sexual attacks and harassment." Several days later, on April 23, Freitag was called to a meeting with Schwartz and O'Neill. At the meeting, Schwartz 844 informed Freitag that she was *844 being relieved of her duty in the SHU pending a psychiatric evaluation;

Schwartz stated that the prison was taking the action in response to Freitag's "incoherent" memoranda regarding inmate harassment. Schwartz also threatened to terminate her. Freitag was permitted to return to the SHU only after the evaluation deemed her fit for duty.
On July 7, the day after Freitag returned to the SHU, she witnessed Inmate Y masturbating in the yard. She submitted a 115 Form charging him with indecent exposure, but her supervisors declined her recommendation that he be disciplined with escort status. On July 15, Freitag wrote another memorandum to Ayers requesting that officers in the SHU receive additional training on how to manage inmates with behavioral problems. She detailed an incident that occurred the day before in which Inmate Y refused to be handcuffed by two correctional officers, one of whom allegedly responded by slamming the cuff port door on the prisoner's hands.
On July 26, Pelican Bay initiated an internal affairs (IA) investigation of Freitag. The investigation was initiated by Ayers and arose from purported factual inaccuracies in Freitag's memorandum regarding the July 14 incident involving Inmate Y. On August 6, Ayers initiated another IA investigation of Freitag's allegations that her supervisors were destroying her disciplinary reports. The request submitted by Ayers alleged that Freitag had made "slanderous accusations against other staff."
On August 11, 1999, Freitag filed a formal complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). She alleged that she had been sexually harassed by Pelican Bay inmates, that she complained about the harassment to supervisors Glen Rodman, Carmichael, Schwartz, Ayers, and Terhune, that "my employer did not take the proper steps to address my complaint," and that in retaliation for her complaints she was threatened by Schwartz with termination and temporarily relieved of duty in the SHU. Augustine Lopez, the prison's Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinator, prepared the institution's response, which concluded that Freitag's allegations were unsubstantiated. As part of his investigation, Lopez interviewed Ayers and several other Pelican Bay administrators, but he acknowledges that he later destroyed the notes from those interviews.
On August 17, 1999, Freitag sent a letter to California State Senator Richard Polanco in which she alleged that she and other female correctional officers were regularly subjected to sexually abusive behavior in the SHU and that supervisors failed to respond adequately to her complaints regarding the inmate conduct. She also claimed that her disciplinary reports either were ignored completely or were not acted upon in sufficient time to permit the disciplining of inmates. She sent a second letter to Polanco dated September 24, 1999, with a copy to Terhune, in which she further described the mistreatment that she received from Pelican Bay inmates and staff. In October, Polanco contacted the California Office of the Inspector General (IG), a state agency that oversees the CDCR, and requested that it initiate an investigation of the allegations in Freitag's letters. The IG sent several investigators, including Senior Deputy Inspector General Richard Ramsdell, to Pelican Bay; from November to December 1999, they interviewed dozens of prison inmates and employees, including Freitag, reviewed the inmates' central files, and contacted the Del Norte County District Attorney's Office regarding the referral of 845 indecent exposure complaints from the prison. Freitag also exchanged *845 letters with Ramsdell during the investigation.
The IG published a report of its investigation on July 11, 2000. The findings were uniformly and pointedly damning: The agency determined that (1) inmates in the SHU "regularly subject female correctional officers to lewd exhibitionism and exhibitionist masturbation"; (2) "supervisors and top administrative staff at Pelican Bay have not responded appropriately to complaints about inmates directing exhibitionist masturbation toward female staff members and have made little effort to take advantage of the options available to control exhibitionist masturbation behavior"; (3) "the security housing unit is not effectively using the prison disciplinary process and available legal sanctions in handling exhibitionist masturbation cases"; (4) Pelican Bay had "stopped referring exhibitionist masturbation cases to the district attorney"; and (5) Warden Ayers had taken "no definitive actions . . . to address exhibitionist masturbation directed at female correctional officers by male inmates." The IG also reported that Lopez informed one state investigator that "[t]he reason the inmates hit on [the female correctional officers] is that they're a bunch of lesbians."
In addition to the two IA investigations of her initiated by Ayers in July and August 1999, Freitag was targeted by at least two more investigations following her DFEH complaint and letters to Polanco. On September 15, 1999, Ayers requested an IA investigation regarding Freitag's purported improper use of state resources, such as copy machines and telephones, for the purpose of pursuing her complaints. On October 22, Correctional Captain Paul

Dillard sent Ayers a memorandum recommending that IA investigate allegedly false claims by Freitag that a correctional officer contaminated an inmate's food in May of that year. Freitag was formally interviewed regarding the latter charge on November 19, 1999.
On January 13, 2000, while the IG's investigation was being conducted, Schwartz sent Freitag a preliminary notice of adverse action stemming from the IA investigation into Freitag's report of the July 14, 1999, incident involving Inmate Y. Ayers recommended that Freitag be suspended for five days as a result of the investigation's determination that she falsified facts in her written memorandum describing the incident. On February 8, while the agency investigation was still in progress, Schwartz sent a second notice of adverse action, this time arising out of the prison's finding that Freitag made false accusations regarding her fellow officer contaminating the inmate's food. As a result of the findings of the two IA investigations, Freitag was terminated shortly before the Office of the Inspector General issued its report. Freitag then initiated an administrative appeal of her termination before the California State Personnel Board. As far as the record before us reveals, the administrative appeal was still pending at the time the parties filed their briefs with this court.
II
Freitag filed her initial complaint in the district court on June 27, 2000. She alleged that (1) the CDCR is liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for sexual harassment pursuant to a hostile work environment theory; (2) the CDCR is liable under Title VII for retaliation; (3) Ayers, Schwartz, Carmichael, Rodman, Dillard, O'Neill, George Neotti,[2] and Lopez are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating various of her constitutional 846 rights; and (4) all of the defendants *846 are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for conspiring to violate her constitutional rights. Freitag sought compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief.
On March 25, 2002, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It denied the motion with respect to the following claims: (1) the Title VII hostile work environment claim against the CDCR, (2) the Title VII retaliation claim against the CDCR based upon adverse employment actions not including Freitag's termination, and (3) the § 1983 claim that the individual defendants retaliated against Freitag in violation of her First Amendment rights. A jury trial commenced in March 2003. Freitag and several of her fellow female correctional officers testified regarding the sexually abusive environment in the SHU and the lack of an adequate institutional response. Freitag's expert on prison administration, William Katsaris, testified that Pelican Bay was "the only institution I have come across that has a serious problem with [exhibitionist masturbation]." He stated that prisons throughout the country have controlled the problem in part by installing semi-opaque finish to control booth windows so that officers can see out but inmates cannot see in.[3] He further testified that Pelican Bay administrators could have taken, but failed to take, other corrective actions such as imposing serious disciplinary measures for sexual misconduct, restraining sexually abusive inmates or taking away their yard privileges, and working with the district attorney's office to prosecute serious and repeat offenders. In addition, the IG's report was admitted into evidence over the defendants' objection, and Ramsdell testified extensively regarding the agency's investigation into Freitag's complaints and the prison's failure to take the requisite corrective actions.
The jury returned a unanimous verdict on April 3, 2003. It found the CDCR liable under Title VII for sexual harassment and retaliation, and Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez liable under § 1983 for retaliation in violation of Freitag's First Amendment rights. It awarded Freitag $500,000 in economic damages and $100,000 in noneconomic damages, and $100 in punitive damages against each Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez. The verdict form did not require the jury to determine how much each defendant was liable for on each claim it 0907 found the CDCR and Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of compensatory damages.
On May 15, 2003, Freitag moved to amend the judgment to include permanent injunctive relief. The district court granted her motion in part, finding that "this Court has the authority to fashion an injunction that benefits not only Plaintiff, but all female correctional officers and other staff members at Pelican Bay who have been or may be harmed by CDC's unlawful conduct." The court entered the following permanent injunction:

847

The California Department of Corrections,[4] its agents, officers, successors in *847 office,

employees and all persons acting in concert or participating with the department are permanently

enjoined from engaging in any employment practices, or taking any other personnel action, for the

purpose or with the effect of maintaining a sexually hostile work environment at Pelican Bay State

Prison, or otherwise discriminating against any Pelican Bay State Prison employee on the basis of

sex. The California Department of Corrections, its agents, officers, successors in office,

employees and all persons acting in concert or participating with the department are further

enjoined from engaging in any employment practices, or taking any other personnel action, for the

purpose or with the effect of retaliating against any Pelican Bay State Prison employee for

complaining about, or otherwise opposing, practices made unlawful by Title VII.

The district court denied Freitag's request that the court mandate specific measures to alleviate the problems she raised, opting instead to refer the matter to a special master with the authority to monitor compliance with the injunction and to develop a remedial plan. The court also awarded Freitag attorneys' fees.

The CDCR, Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez appealed, raising the following arguments: (1) the CDCR cannot as a matter of law be liable under Title VII for a hostile work environment created by inmates and, even if it could be liable, substantial evidence does not support the jury's verdict of liability in this case; (2) substantial evidence does not support the jury's verdict that the CDCR is liable for retaliation under Title VII; (3) substantial evidence does not support the verdict against Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez; (4) the award of compensatory and punitive damages is not supported by substantial evidence; and (5) the district court abused its discretion in granting injunctive relief.

III

We review a district court's conclusions of law de novo. See Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.2004). A jury's verdict, including a damages award, must be upheld if supported by "substantial evidence." See Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 2002). The district court's grant of injunctive relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and for the application of correct legal principles. See Fortyune v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1079 (9th Cir.2004).
IV

Hostile Work Environment
We first address the CDCR's contention that it cannot, as a matter of law, be liable under Title VII for maintaining a hostile work environment caused by inmate misconduct. The contention is unsupported by the entire weight of case authority in this circuit and others, and we are compelled to reject it.
In the Ninth Circuit, employers are liable for harassing conduct by non-employees "where the employer either ratifies or acquiesces in the harassment by not taking immediate and/or corrective actions when it knew or should have known of the conduct." Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 107 F.3d 754, 756 (9th Cir.1997); see also Little v. Windermere Relocation, Inc., 301 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir.2002). In recognizing that employers may be liable for third-party conduct, we, along with several other circuits, see, e.g., Berry v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 260 F.3d 803, 811-12 (7th Cir.2001); Turnbull v. Topeka State Hosp., 255 F.3d 1238, 1244 (10th Cir.2001); Crist v. Focus Homes, Inc., 122 F.3d 1107, 1111 (8th Cir.1997), have relied in part upon a regulation of the Equal Employment 848 Opportunity Commission that provides *848 that employers may be held liable for the acts of non-employees where the employer "knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action." 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(e). This theory of liability is grounded not in the harassing act itself 0907 i.e., inmate misconduct0907but rather in the employer's "negligence and ratification" of the harassment through its failure to take appropriate and reasonable responsive action. See Galdamez v. Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir.2005).

Notwithstanding the clarity of our law on this point, the defendants request that we become the first court in the country to carve out an exception to Title VII whereby prisons, due to their distinctive character and problems, and in particular their "inherently hostile environment," are immune from lawsuits by correctional officers arising from sexual harassment by inmates. In support of this position, the defendants cite several cases in which federal courts have treated prisons differently in the context of civil rights claims. For example, in Slayton v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 206 F.3d 669, 677 (6th Cir.2000), in which a female correctional officer at a juvenile detention center alleged that the institution maintained a sexually hostile work environment caused in large part by inmate misconduct, the Sixth Circuit noted:
Prisoners, by definition, have breached prevailing societal norms in fundamentally corrosive ways. By choosing to work in a prison, corrections personnel have acknowledged and accepted the probability they will face inappropriate and socially deviant behavior. Nevertheless, the Slayton court upheld a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that, although allegations of inmate misconduct alone cannot support a hostile work environment claim, "this general rule against prison liability for inmate conduct does not apply when the institution fails to take appropriate steps to remedy or prevent illegal inmate behavior." Id.
The defendants also cite the following language from Powell v. Morris, 37 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1017 (S.D.Ohio 1999) :
The propensity of courts to decline imposing liability for prisoner acts is based on solid logical and practical foundations: anyone who works at a prison . . . must expect some off-color interactions. . . . It is absurd to expect that a prison can actually stop all obscene comments and conduct from its inmates0907 people who have been deemed unsuited to live in normal society.
However, the defendants neglect to cite the very next sentence of the Powell opinion: "The most we can expect and require prisons to do is to implement and enforce policies reasonably calculated to minimize such harassment and protect the safety of its employees." Id. The defendants also cited Powell in the district court but there too failed to include the abovementioned sentence, an act the district judge characterized as "illustrative of Defendants' tendency to mischaracterize the relevant case law." Notably, although the defendants cite Powell in support of their argument that "Title VII does not impose liability on a prison employer for a hostile work environment caused by inmates under a negligence theory of direct liability," they fail to refer to a passage in the opinion that is far more pertinent to the present case: "Courts have repeatedly declined to impose sexual harassment liability upon correctional institutions for the sexually offensive conduct of inmates, as long as the defendant institution took proper preventative and remedial steps with regard to inmate behavior." Id. (emphasis added).
In short, the defendants cite no authority, and we have found none, holding that prisons are uniquely exempt from 849 liability *849 for sexual harassment under Title VII, nor have they proffered any evidence that Congress intended
prison employers to be thus exempt. Further, we see no persuasive argument, legal or otherwise, to support the novel position that the defendants take on this issue. Nothing in the law suggests that prison officials may ignore sexually hostile conduct and refrain from taking corrective actions that would safeguard the rights of the victims, whether they be guards or inmates. As the district court found, "even in an inherently dangerous working environment, the focus remains on whether the employer took reasonable measures to make the workplace as safe as possible." The CDCR is not, by simple virtue of its status as a correctional institution, immune under Title VII from a legal obligation to take such measures and to protect its employees to the extent possible from inmate sexual abuse.
The next question is whether substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that the CDCR is liable for maintaining a hostile work environment in this case. A plaintiff asserting a Title VII claim under a hostile work environment theory must show (1) the existence of a hostile work environment to which the plaintiff was subjected, and (2) that the employer is liable for the harassment that caused the hostile environment to exist. See Little, 301 F.3d at 966 (citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-89, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998)). To establish the existence of a hostile work environment, "a plaintiff must prove that (1) she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, (2) this conduct was unwelcome, and (3) this conduct

was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of . . . employment and create an abusive working environment." Id. (internal quotations omitted). The third element requires us to consider the totality of the circumstances and whether the harassment was both objectively and subjectively abusive. Id. With respect to the question of liability for harassment caused by a third party, the employer's corrective measures must be "reasonably calculated to end the harassment"; the reasonableness of the corrective action will depend on, inter alia, the employer's ability to stop the harassment and the promptness of the response. See Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 882 (9th Cir.1991) (internal quotations omitted); see also Galdamez, 415 F.3d at 1024.
The jury found that Freitag was subjected to a hostile work environment due to inmate sexual misconduct, and that the CDCR was liable because it failed to take prompt and effective remedial action reasonably calculated to address the misconduct. We conclude with little difficulty that substantial evidence supports each finding. With respect to the finding that Freitag was subjected to a hostile employment environment: First, there is sufficient evidence that Freitag was repeatedly exposed to conduct of a sexual nature. The jury heard testimony and reviewed exhibits that established that Freitag witnessed inmates masturbating in an exhibitionist manner, oftentimes while they directed verbal taunts and crude remarks at her. Second, the defendants' argument to the contrary notwithstanding, there was substantial evidence that Freitag did not welcome the sexually abusive conduct merely by accepting a job in the SHU. Although it certainly would have been reasonable for Freitag to anticipate substantial inmate misbehavior, given the severity of the crimes committed by those incarcerated at Pelican Bay, see Slayton, 206 F.3d at 677, she also had reason to expect that prison officials would seek in good faith to control the most extreme forms of sexual misconduct. In any event, contemplating some difficulties is a far 850 cry from welcoming *850 a constant barrage of sexual abuse that, according to the testimony at trial, was allowed to continue virtually unfettered for the duration of Freitag's employment at the prison. Third, substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that the exhibitionist masturbation was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute abuse. On this point, the defendants argue that, following Freitag's April 7, 1999 memorandum to Schwartz, which they characterize as her first complaint to prison administrators, she "witnessed only three incidents of inmate masturbation." Even accepting the defendants' argument that the CDCR did not know about such behavior until April 7, 1999, a single incident of severe abuse can constitute a hostile work environment. See Little, 301 F.3d at 967 (citing Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001)). More important, however, the defendants' time line misrepresents the record it 0907 ignores Freitag's March 17, 1999 memorandum to O'Neill and Ayers in which she complained that her disciplinary reports on inmate sexual misconduct were being ignored. The defendants' tally thus does not account for the March 18 and April 7 incidents in which Freitag was exposed to exhibitionist masturbation. We find no basis to overturn the jury's determination on this issue.
The jury's second principal finding0907that the CDCR failed to take prompt, corrective, and reasonable action to address the issue of inmate sexual misconduct is 0907 also supported by substantial evidence. The jury heard testimony on this question from, among others, Katsaris, who testified that Pelican Bay is the only institution he has encountered with such a pervasive problem of inmate sexual misconduct. He testified regarding the corrective measures that other prisons have undertaken but that Pelican Bay had to that point ignored, including installing semi-opaque film on control towers and cells and imposing serious disciplinary measures on repeat offenders. The jury also had before it the IG's report,[5] which enumerated the agency's findings that, among other things, the administrative staff at Pelican Bay had not responded appropriately to the concerns expressed by female officers about exhibitionist masturbation, and the institution had not taken adequate steps to correct the problem. The defendants' own brief acknowledges that "[t]he correctional staff controls inmates primarily by the inmate disciplinary process, physical restraints, revocation of privileges, and referral for criminal prosecution," all measures the evidence shows it failed to invoke in this case. Accordingly, there was more than enough evidence to support the jury's finding that the prison failed to respond adequately or reasonably to the sexual abuse directed at Freitag and other female correctional officers.
851 For these reasons, we affirm the jury's verdict that the CDCR may be, and is in *851 this case, liable under Title VII for maintaining a hostile work environment at Pelican Bay.
Title VII Retaliation

The defendants urge that substantial evidence does not support the jury's finding that the CDCR is liable under Title VII for retaliating against Freitag. A plaintiff may meet his burden of proof for a claim of retaliation under Title VII by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) involvement in protected activity opposing an unlawful employment practice, (2) an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)). With respect to the first element, "opposition clause protection will be accorded whenever the opposition is based on a reasonable belief that the employer has engaged in an unlawful employment practice." Moyo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d 982, 984 (9th Cir.1994) (internal quotes omitted) (emphasis in original).
The defendants make two related arguments as to CDCR retaliation. First, they contend that Freitag's belief that she opposed an unlawful employment action was unreasonable because "Title VII proscribes neither harassment by prison inmates nor a prison's failure to take adequate steps to address the harassment." That argument is foreclosed by our analysis in the previous section, which requires no repetition here. Second, the defendants argue that "[a]n employer cannot engage in unlawful retaliation if it does not know the employee has opposed or is opposing a violation of Title VII." To the extent that their contention is that they did not know Freitag was opposing unlawful sexual harassment, it is belied by (1) Freitag's April 7, 1999 memorandum to Schwartz, which stated that she should be "recompensed" for the injury she suffered due to the inmate misconduct she described and the prison's failure to respond; (2) her April 15, 1999, memorandum to Terhune, which alleged that the prison was doing nothing to address the "hostile worksite" created by inmate exhibitionist masturbation; and (3) her filing of a formal complaint with DFEH in August 1999 specifically alleging retaliation and harassment based upon her sex. To the extent that the defendants argue that they did not understand that the facts Freitag alleged regarding their failure to respond to the problems constituted a violation of Title VII, their argument is also without merit. The dispositive question is not whether the administrators at Pelican Bay believed that their failure to correct the complained of conditions constituted a violation of Title VII, but rather (1) whether they were aware that Freitag had "opposed" that failure and (2) whether Freitag's belief that their conduct was unlawful was reasonable. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 252-53, 101 S.Ct. 1089. Notwithstanding the defendants' erroneous opinion of the law, they had the requisite knowledge regarding Freitag's complaints. As Freitag points out in her brief, "the inability of the defendants to grasp the mandate of Title VII, particularly in light of the clear language of 29 C.F.R. 1604.11, [] did not give them carte blanche to retaliate against [her] just because she evidently understood the law better than they did."
Because the defendants raise no meritorious challenge to the jury's finding that the CDCR is liable under Title VII for retaliating against Freitag, we affirm the verdict on this claim.[6]
852 *852 First Amendment Retaliation
The jury found that Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez retaliated against Freitag in violation of her First Amendment rights. On appeal, the defendants challenge the jury's finding with respect to each element required to establish a First Amendment claim against a public employer: (1) The employee engaged in constitutionally protected speech, (2) the employer took adverse employment action against the employee, and (3) the employee's speech was a "substantial or motivating" factor in the adverse action. See Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2003). There can be no serious dispute that substantial evidence supports the jury's findings that the second and third elements were met with respect to Ayers and Schwartz.[7] Ayers initiated several IA investigations of Freitag shortly after she contacted Polanco, and Schwartz temporarily relieved her of duty in the SHU and ordered her to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, stating explicitly that she was doing so as a result of Freitag's complaints of inmate harassment. Both also approved her suspension and termination,[8] and there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have inferred that Freitag's speech was a substantial or motivating factor in these adverse actions. See Coszalter, 320 F.3d at 977 (holding that a proximity in time of between three and eight months could support an inference of retaliation). However, because the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006), modified prior First Amendment jurisprudence with respect to the first element 0907employee protected speech we 0907 remand Freitag's § 1983 claim to the district court for reconsideration in light of that decision.[9]
853

*853 In Ceballos, the Supreme Court considered whether an internal memorandum written by a deputy district attorney to his supervisors regarding what he believed to be misconduct in an investigation was protected speech under the First Amendment. 126 S.Ct. at 1955-57. It concluded that, under Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983), the issue is not only whether the speech in question addresses a matter of public concern, but also whether it is made as a citizen. See id. at 1956 (citing Connick, 461 U.S. at 146-47, 103 S.Ct. 1684). The Court then determined that Ceballos did not speak as a citizen when he wrote the memorandum and thus did not engage in constitutionally protected speech, holding:

The controlling factor in Ceballos' case is that his expressions were made pursuant to his duties as a calendar deputy. That consideration0907the fact that Ceballos spoke as a prosecutor fulfilling his responsibility to advise his supervisor about how best to proceed with a pending case0907distinguishes Ceballos' case from those in which the First Amendment provides protection against discipline. We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.

Id. at 1959-60 (internal citations omitted). Ceballos's First Amendment claim failed because, "[w]hen he went to work and performed the tasks he was paid to perform, Ceballos acted as a government employee" as opposed to a citizen for purposes of the First Amendment. Id. at 1960.

The Court in Ceballos relied in large part upon its ruling in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). It considered the case a "useful starting point" in its First Amendment analysis, and the speech at issue in Pickering a material contrast to that in the case before it. 126 S.Ct. at 1957. In Pickering, a school teacher wrote a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the school board's allocation of financial resources and the district superintendent's alleged attempt to prevent teachers from opposing a proposed school bond. 391 U.S. at 566, 88 S.Ct. 1731. The teacher was subsequently dismissed and he sued, claiming that the letter was protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 567, 88 S.Ct. 1731. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the teacher did not, by accepting his job, "relinquish the First Amendment rights [he] would otherwise enjoy as[a] citizen[ ] to comment on matters of public interest." Id. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731. In addition, the Court noted that teachers are

the members of a community most likely to have informed and definite opinions as to how funds allotted to the operation of the schools should be spent. Accordingly, it is essential that they be able to speak out freely on such questions without fear of retaliatory dismissal.

Id. at 572, 88 S.Ct. 1731.

We are confronted with two issues: (1) whether the jury was instructed to consider only speech that, in light of Ceballos, is protected under the First Amendment, and (2) whether, if the jury was permitted to consider speech that is not protected, the instruction was harmless. With respect to the first issue, the jury was instructed in pertinent part as follows:

Examples of speech protected by the First Amendment include:

(a) Reporting sexually hostile inmate conduct to agents of the California Department of Corrections, either formally or informally;

854

(b) Documenting Pelican Bay State Prison's responses or failures to respond *854 to Plaintiff's

reports of sexually hostile inmate conduct;

(c) Informing Cal Terhune, Director of the California Department of Corrections, of either the inmates' sexually hostile conduct or of Pelican Bay State Prison's responses or failures to respond;

(d) Informing State Senator Richard Polanco either of sexually hostile conduct or of the Pelican Bay State Prison's responses or failures to respond;

(e) Reporting either the sexually hostile conduct or Pelican Bay State Prison's responses or failures to respond to the Office of the Inspector General; or
(f) Cooperation with the investigation conducted by the Office of the Inspector General.
The defendants proffer two arguments why, in view of Ceballos, this instruction is erroneous and requires us to reverse the jury's verdict with respect to the § 1983 claim. First, they assert that Freitag did not in any instance speak "as a citizen" for purposes of constitutional analysis. Second, they contend that Freitag's speech did not address a matter of public concern. We disagree with respect to items (d), (e), and (f) 0907Freitag's letters to Senator Polanco and her written and oral communications with the Inspector General 0907all of which is related to the sexual abuse that she and other female correctional officers suffered at Pelican Bay. We think it clear that these communications are protected under the First Amendment.
With respect to the defendants' first argument, Pickering and Ceballos require the conclusion that Freitag acted as a citizen when she wrote letters to Senator Polanco and communicated with the Inspector General regarding her complaints of sexual harassment. Her right to complain both to an elected public official and to an independent state agency is guaranteed to any citizen in a democratic society regardless of his status as a public employee. See Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731. Indeed, these particular communications undoubtedly "bore similarities to letters submitted by numerous citizens every day." Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. at 1960 (citing Pickering). Under Ceballos, Freitag does not lose her right to speak as a citizen simply because she initiated the communications while at work or because they concerned the subject matter of her employment. Id. at 1959. The critical inquiry is instead whether Freitag engaged in the relevant speech "pursuant to [her] official duties." 126 S.Ct. at 1960. With respect to her contact with Senator Polanco and the IG, the answer is "No."[10] It was certainly not part of her official tasks to complain to the Senator or the IG about the state's failure to perform its duties properly, and specifically its failure to take corrective action to eliminate sexual harassment in its workplace. Rather, it was Freitag's responsibility as a citizen to expose such official malfeasance to broader scrutiny. Accordingly, in these instances, for purposes of the First Amendment she spoke as a citizen.
As to the defendants' second argument that Freitag's complaints did not address a matter of public concern, we strongly disagree. Her assertions that inmates at Pelican Bay engaged in sexually abusive behavior with respect to the female guards while the prison's administrators failed to take appropriate corrective measures is "relevan[t] 855 to the public's evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies." *855 Coszalter, 320 F.3d at 973-74. Notably, several female correctional officers, including Freitag, testified at trial that the hostile work environment at Pelican Bay made it very difficult for them to perform their duties, and Katsaris testified that, in such circumstances, the prison's authority over its inmates is significantly eroded. Further, although the proper administration of our prisons generally is undoubtedly of great public interest, the specific allegations in this case address a matter of acute concern to the entire community. A vast majority of our state's prisoners will reenter the general population some day, some sooner than others.[11] It certainly would be of grave concern if those inmates were being released into our neighborhoods from an environment in which the State of California condoned sexually abusive behavior and the harassment of women.
For these reasons, we hold that Freitag's communications with Senator Polanco and the California Inspector General constitute constitutionally protected speech. However, under the district court's instruction, those were not the only communications the jury was entitled to consider in determining whether Ayers and Schwartz retaliated against Freitag in violation of her First Amendment rights. The relevant jury instruction also listed, as examples of protected speech, Freitag's internal reports of inmate sexual misconduct and documentation of the prison's failure to respond, as well as her communications with Terhune, the director of the CDCR. To the extent that the jury may have considered internal forms prepared by Freitag, it is clear that, under Ceballos, such activity is not constitutionally protected. For purposes of First Amendment analysis, Freitag submitted those reports pursuant to her official duties as a correctional officer and thus not in her capacity as a citizen. Whether Freitag's April 15, 1999 letter to Terhune is protected under the First Amendment is a closer question. We are unsure whether prison guards are expected to air complaints regarding the conditions in their prisons all the way up to the Director of the CDCR at the state capitol in Sacramento. We are not aware, for example, what the union contract provides with respect to the persons to whom such grievances may or must be presented. The district

court, having presided over this and related litigation for several years, may be in a better position to make the relevant factual determinations and, accordingly, we remand to it the issue of whether the Terhune letter is covered by the First Amendment.
Because the relevant instruction permitted the jury to consider, along with speech that we hold to be constitutionally protected, at least some unprotected speech as well, we remand Freitag's § 1983 claim to the district court for reconsideration. On remand, the district court shall make two determinations: (1) whether the Terhune letter constitutes protected speech, and (2) whether the jury instruction, which included as examples of protected speech either two or three items of unprotected speech, was more probably than not harmless. See Swinton, 270 F.3d at 805. In other words, is it more likely than not that the jury verdict was not affected by the erroneous inclusion of the two or three examples of unprotected speech? Given the district judge's expertise and his familiarity with the facts in the lengthy trial over which he presided, we think that he is best equipped to answer these questions in the first instance.
856 *856 Damages
The defendants also challenge the jury's damages award, arguing that it is not supported by substantial evidence. The jury heard testimony from two expert witnesses regarding the economic damages that Freitag suffered as a result of the harassment and retaliation inflicted upon her by the CDCR and Pelican Bay prison administrators, as well as testimony from her treating psychiatrist regarding non-economic damages resulting from the same. The jury determined that, as a result of the harassment and the various retaliatory acts by the defendants, including the internal affairs investigations that eventually led to Freitag's termination, and the termination itself, she suffered $500,000 in economic damages. It also found that, as a result of the defendants' actions, she suffered $100,000 in non-economic damages.
The special verdict form did not require the jury to determine how much each defendant is liable for under each claim. Instead, the jury found all four appellants0907 the CDCR, Ayers, Schwartz, and Lopez (whom we have ordered dismissed)0907jointly and severally liable for the entire $600,000 in compensatory damages. The defendants do not challenge on appeal the fact that the jury held them jointly and severally liable for the entire award. They argue only that the amount is not supported by substantial evidence.
Assuming that the jury's findings as to all of the various claims were to stand, we would have no difficulty holding that the total sum awarded was supported by substantial evidence. We are left in a difficult position vis-à-vis the damages award, however, because although we affirm the jury's verdict with respect to Freitag's Title VII claims, we are remanding her § 1983 claim. We do not wish to speculate whether the entire amount of compensatory damages would be justified if only Freitag's Title VII claims remained following the district court's reconsideration on remand, or what effect a modification of the verdict as to the § 1983 claim might have on the amount to be awarded. We prefer to leave that question to the district court for its initial review, if such review is necessary after it has addressed the harmless error question we have asked it to consider with respect to the § 1983 claim. Thus, we remand the jury's damages award with instructions to reconsider, if necessary, whether the $600,000 award of compensatory damages remains valid. See Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1406 (9th Cir.1994). Because the award of $100 in punitive damages against each Ayers and Schwartz was in connection with the § 1983 claim, we remand that award for reconsideration, if necessary, as well. In addition, because the district court may wish to reconsider the extent to which Freitag remains a prevailing party after it determines what, if any, adjustments it must make with respect to liability and damages, we also remand the issue of attorneys' fees for reconsideration, if necessary.
Injunctive Relief
The defendants assert that the district court abused its discretion in granting permanent injunctive relief. The sole contention in support of their argument is that Freitag no longer works for the CDCR and thus cannot benefit from the injunction.
The defendants cite only Rau v. Apple-Rio Management Company, Inc., 85 F.Supp.2d 1344 (N.D.Ga.1999), in which the district court granted a plaintiff limited injunctive relief following a favorable jury verdict on her Title VII claims. The court did not grant the plaintiff's request that her employer remove documents from her personnel file

857 in part because she was no longer an employee, despite the fact that she opined that she could be reinstated if *857 successful in a separate claim for constructive discharge. Rau, 85 F.Supp.2d at 1351 n. 4. The defendants urge that Freitag's re-employment with the CDCR is similarly "speculative," and thus that injunctive relief on her behalf is not appropriate.
Without endorsing the Georgia district court decision, we acknowledge that Freitag's reinstatement to employment with the CDCR is not certain. Nevertheless, when the district court issued its injunction, Freitag was still in the process of pursuing her state administrative appeal in which she maintains that she is entitled to retain her position as a correctional officer at Pelican Bay. Our decision in Nanty v. Barrows Co., 660 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir.1981) (overruled on other grounds, O'Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., 79 F.3d 756 (9th Cir.1996)), is pertinent. In Nanty, we held that a Native American truck driver was unlawfully discriminated against under Title VII when a company failed to hire him because of his race. 660 F.2d at 1332. Although we remanded Nanty's request for an injunction requiring the company to hire him because the record was not clear whether it would have given him the job absent its discriminatory actions, we held that he nevertheless was entitled to an injunction prohibiting the company from discriminating on the basis of race in its future hiring. Id. at 1333. We affirmed the injunction in part because the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to the job he sought had not been finally resolved and, thus, he retained a personal interest in ensuring that the company's discriminatory activity be enjoined. See id.
In California, permanent state employees possess a property interest in their job, guaranteed by statute, with attendant due process rights in their continued employment. See Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., 15 Cal.3d 194, 124 Cal.Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d 774, 784 (1975). That interest and the attendant rights are not lost upon termination but continue post-termination pending the final resolution of the administrative proceeding before the Personnel Board. See id. 124 Cal.Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d at 789; see also CAL. GOV'T CODE §§ 19575-78. The administrative process that will determine whether Freitag remains entitled to her job with the CDCR is pending, and thus her property interest and due process rights have not been extinguished. More important, at the time the district court issued the injunction, Freitag possessed a property interest in her job and thus possessed a sufficient connection to her employment with the prison to support the issuance of an injunction in her favor. We conclude, as did the district court, that she has standing to seek an injunction affecting the employment practices of the CDCR.
V
There was overwhelming evidence presented to the jury that the CDCR maintained a hostile work environment at Pelican Bay by failing to take prompt and reasonable corrective action with respect to Freitag's multiple complaints regarding inmate exhibitionist masturbation directed at her and other female correctional officers. There was also overwhelming evidence that agents of the CDCR retaliated against Freitag as a result of those complaints. For these reasons, we affirm the jury's verdict with respect to the CDCR's liability under Title VII. However, due to an intervening Supreme Court decision, we remand for reconsideration of the jury's finding that Freitag's superiors retaliated against her in violation of her First Amendment rights in light of the instructional error regarding constitutionally protected speech. In this connection, we direct the district court to determine 858 whether such error was harmless. Accordingly, we remand the damages award *858 and attorneys' fees award as well. Because of insufficiency of the evidence, we reverse the § 1983 judgment against Lopez. Finally, we affirm the district court's grant of injunctive relief.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART.
[1] The material facts in this case are not in dispute.
[2] Neotti was Pelican Bay's employee relations officer.
[3] Pelican Bay did install opaque material on SHU cell doors, which prevented officers from viewing celled inmates from the waist down, but it did not do so until late 2000 or early 2001, after Freitag was terminated. Further, it did not install the material on control booth windows and thus did not address the problem of inmates masturbating in the prison yard knowing that female correctional officers are on duty.

[4] At the time the district court granted injunctive relief, the agency was called the California Department of Corrections. In May 2005, it reorganized and changed its name to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
[5] The district court did not err in admitting the IG's report into evidence at trial. Under the hearsay exceptions for business records, FED. R. EVID. 803(6), and public records, id. 803(8), the report was afforded a presumption of reliability and trustworthiness that the defendants failed to rebut. See Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 858 (9th Cir. 1999). Specifically, Rule 803(8) allows the admission of reports of public agencies "setting forth . . . factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness." FED. R. EVID. 803(8); see also Johnson v. City of Pleasanton, 982 F.2d 350, 352 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that, under Rule 803(8), reports of public agencies shall be admitted where the challenging party fails to meet its burden to show untrustworthiness). The defendants had a fair opportunity to challenge the reliability of the report through their cross-examination of Ramsdell. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the report reliable.
[6] On June 22, 2006, the defendants submitted a letter pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) in which they request that we consider the Supreme Court's recent decision in Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Co. v. White, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006). They argue that Burlington rejected the Ninth Circuit's definition of what constitutes an adverse employment action and, accordingly, that we must reverse the Title VII retaliation verdict because the jury was not instructed that the employment actions must be considered adverse by a reasonable employee. See Burlington, 126 S.Ct. at 2415. We conclude that any instructional error was harmless. The instruction given to the jury stated that an adverse action "is defined as any action that is reasonably likely to deter the plaintiff or others from engaging in protected activity." The instruction, if erroneous, was harmless because the jury almost certainly would have found that the adverse employment actions it considered with respect to Freitag's Title VII claim 0907her temporary removal from duty in the SHU, the psychiatric evaluation, and the internal affairs investigations0907would be considered materially adverse by a reasonable employee. See Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794, 805 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that an instructional error in a civil case requires reversal only where the error is not "more probably than not harmless").
[7] There is no evidence that Lopez is liable for retaliation under § 1983 because there is no evidence that he was responsible for, participated in, or even had knowledge of, any adverse employment action taken against Freitag. He did not contribute to the decision to relieve Freitag from her duty in the SHU, to refer her for psychiatric evaluation, to initiate the internal affairs investigations, or to terminate her. Thus, we reverse the jury verdict with respect to Lopez.
[8] The defendants argue that the district court's grant of summary judgment to the CDCR on Freitag's termination claim under Title VII necessarily barred consideration of her claim for termination under § 1983. That argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See Allen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting the defendants' attempt to import a Title VII standard in a § 1983 case because "the Title VII [burden-shifting] formula . . . allocates burdens of proof more favorably to defendants").
[9] Subsequent to the issuance of Ceballos, we requested supplemental briefs from the parties addressing its effect on this case.
[10] We note that one IA investigation of Freitag arose from her purported improper use of state resources while on the job. That the defendants considered Freitag's use of copy machines and telephones to complain to outsiders about the harassment to which she was subjected improper and outside the scope of her employment is further evidence that her complaints were not made pursuant to her official duties.
[11] The record is unclear as to whether any specific inmate who Freitag alleges contributed directly to the sexually hostile work environment has been released.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Ayers v. Freitag, 549 U.S. 1323 (2007)
127 S.Ct. 1918 Supreme Court of the United States Robert J. AYERS, et al., petitioners,
v. Deanna FREITAG. No. 06-1085. | April 2, 2007.
Case below, 468 F.3d 528.

Opinion
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Parallel Citations 127 S.Ct. 1918 (Mem), 100 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 256, 167 L.Ed.2d 567, 75 USLW 3410, 75 USLW 3526, 75 USLW 3529, 25 IER Cases 1504
	  

1